Ministers’ Deputies / Délégués des Ministres

Agenda / Ordre du jour

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2010)1100 Section/Rubrique 4.2 PUBLIC                        17 December / décembre 2010

———————————————

1100 meeting / réunion (DH),

30 November/novembre, 1-2 December/décembre 2010
Section/Rubrique 4.2

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

- 12 cases against Albania / 12 affaires contre l'Albanie

41153/06           Dybeku, judgment of 18/12/2007, final on 02/06/2008[1]

25336/04           Grori, judgment of 07/07/2009, final on 07/10/2009[2]

35853/04          Bajrami, judgment of 12/12/2006, final on 12/03/2007, revised on 18/12/2007, final on 18/03/2008

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to respect for family life due to the Albanian authorities' failure to take necessary measures to reunite him with his daughter (violation of Article 8).

In January 2004 the applicant's daughter was taken by her mother to Greece without his consent. On 4/02/2004 the Vlora District Court decreed the applicant's divorce and gave him custody of the child. Although the applicant repeatedly took steps to secure the return of his daughter, the judgment was never enforced. According to the bailiff's office, it was impossible to enforce it since the child was not in Albania.

The European Court noted that Albania had not ratified the relevant international instruments on securing the reunion of parents with their children, including the Hague Convention of 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. However, irrespective of that, the Court found that the Albanian legal system, as it stood, provided no alternative framework affording the applicant the practical and effective protection required by the state's positive obligation enshrined in Article 8 (§67).

Individual measures: In June 2007 the Albanian authorities lodged a request for the revision of the European Court’s judgment, since the applicant had died on 10/11/2006, i.e. before the European Court delivered its judgment. Consequently, on 18/12/2007 the European Court revised its judgment and held that the just satisfaction (including sums due in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses) should be paid to the heir or heirs of the applicant, to be identified according to his will or, if he died intestate, according to the domestic law on succession.

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

General measures: The European Court observed that under Albanian law there was no specific remedy to prevent or punish cases of abduction of children from the territory of Albania. In particular, it noted that Albania was not a state party to the Hague Convention and it had not yet implemented the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20/11/1989. In that respect, the Court recalled that the Convention, although not imposing on states the obligation to ratify international conventions, required them to take all necessary measures to secure the reunion of parents with their children in accordance with a final judgment of a domestic court.

• Information provided by the Albanian authorities:

(1) Ratification of International Conventions: On 04/05/2007 Albania acceded to the Hague Convention of 25/10/1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which entered into force in respect of Albania on 01/08/2007 (for more details see the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law: www.hcch.net).

(2) Abduction of children, a criminal offence in national law: Failure to abide by a final decision concerning custody of children is punishable under Article 127 of the Criminal Code.

(3) Introduction of the private bailiff service: By Law No. 10031 of 11/12/2008, Albania introduced a private bailiff service approved. It is expected that the execution of final decisions in cases such as the present will be considerably improved. Moreover, bailiffs have been requested to treat cases concerning enforcement of court decisions on child custody with special attention.

(4) Safer identification and travel documents for children: Albania has recently adopted a new system of biometric passports. To leave the country, children must have a biometric passport.

(5) Publication and dissemination of the judgment: The European Court's judgment has been translated into Albanian and published in the Official Gazette, No. Extra July 2007 and sent out to courts, bailiffs and police authorities. It has also been one of the main topics of the Magistrate School’s training programme. 

• Confirmation is awaited by the authorities that they have taken all necessary steps to prevent or punish cases of abduction of children from Albania, in compliance with the Hague Convention and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In particular, it would be useful to receive indications that the Central Authority, established in compliance with the Hague Convention is functioning well.

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 (§§60-61). Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages. 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 provided by the Albanian authorities on 18/10/2010: The Constitutional Court, seized by the applicant’s lawyer, delivered its decision No. 22 on 09/03/2010, underlining first, the need for the Albanian Parliament to make good the absence of legislation allowing reopening of criminal proceedings and secondly, that the Supreme Court, the body directly concerned by the judgment of the European Court, was competent to redress the violation. On 23/9/2010 the applicant’s lawyer, following the rejection of his claim by the Supreme Court, lodged a new appeal with the Constitutional Court. The authorities also reported on 18/10/2010 that amendments to the Code of Criminal Proceedings on the reopening of criminal proceedings are expected to be adopted within six months. In compliance with the European Court ’s judgment, on 25/02/2010 the Italian authorities revoked the decree granting Albania’s request for the extradition to of the applicant. However, it seems that the Albanian authorities’ extradition request is still in force. • Assessment: It is noted that the authorities are willing to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, considering that the judgment has now been under execution since the end of 2008, information is awaited on specific measures envisaged to withdraw the extradition request as a matter of urgency and to ensure without further delay that the applicant's acquittal is final and his conviction erased from his criminal record in compliance with the European Court’s judgment. 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 was held with judges, prosecutors, representatives from Ministry of Justice and High Council of Justice to discuss measures to be taken. The judgment has been sent out with an explanatory note to all district courts, courts of appeal, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the General Prosecution Office and the Serious Crimes Court. • Assessment: The violation in this case appears to stem from the approach of the prosecutor and its acceptance by the domestic courts. • Information is awaited on the concrete impact of the measures taken, in particular following the round table (e.g. training of prosecutors and judges). The Deputies: 1.             deeply regretted the inactivity of the authorities with regard to executing the present judgment, which has already been final for two years, and underlined the fact that the applicant continues to suffer from the consequences of the quashing of his final acquittal; 2.             noted in this respect that the authorities have expressed their willingness to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure within six months to allow the reopening of criminal proceedings; also noted that the applicant has lodged a new application with the Constitutional Court, which is currently pending; 3.             underlined in this context the urgency of rapidly obtaining confirmation of the applicant’s acquittal, the deletion of the conviction from his criminal record and the withdrawal of the extradition request concerning him in Italy, in conformity with the European Court’s ruling; 4.             therefore urged the respondent state to act without delay, and to provide the Committee with information on the results obtained, for consideration at its next DH meeting; 5.             also encouraged the authorities to provide information on general measures taken or envisaged to prevent similar violations; 6.             decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH) in the light of information to be provided on urgent individual measures and on the general measures.

37959/02   Xheraj, arrêt du 29/07/08, définitif le 01/12/08 L'affaire concerne une violation du droit du requérant à un procès équitable en raison de l'annulation d'une décision définitive par laquelle il avait été acquitté de meurtre (violation de l'article 6§1). Le requérant avait été condamné pour meurtre le 27/11/1996 par contumace, puis acquitté le 14/12/1998 suite à sa demande de réexamen. La décision d’acquittement est devenue définitive le 24/12/1998. Le 02/10/1999, après l’expiration du délai légal, le procureur près la Cour d'appel de Durrës a formé un appel contre la décision d’acquittement, faisant valoir en particulier que celle-ci n'avait pas été notifiée aux proches de la victime. Il a été fait droit à l’appel du procureur et l'acquittement du requérant a été annulé le 20/06/2001 par la Chambre criminelle de la Cour suprême. Le requérant a été informé de l’annulation de l'acquittement en 2002, lorsque les autorités albanaises ont demandé, sur le fondement de la décision de la Cour suprême du 20/06/2001, son extradition depuis l’Italie où il est détenu pour des infractions sans rapport avec la présente affaire (§26 de l’arrêt). La Cour européenne a noté que la famille de la victime n'avait pas participé au procès bien qu'elle ait disposé d'un certain nombre de possibilités pour ce faire. Elle a aussi relevé que le procureur aurait pu contester l'acquittement dans le délai légal. Elle a conclu que le pourvoi et l'annulation de l'acquittement qui avait suivi n'avaient pas recherché un juste équilibre entre les intérêts du requérant et l'efficacité du système de justice pénale. La décision de la Cour suprême d'annuler l'acquittement était donc contraire au principe de la sécurité juridique (§§60-61). Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a accordé au requérant une satisfaction équitable pour le préjudice moral. Notant néanmoins que le requérant continuait à subir les conséquences de l’annulation de la décision du 14/12/1998, elle a estimé que la forme de réparation la plus appropriée pour cette situation continue consisterait à confirmer l'acquittement définitif du requérant du 14/12/1998 et à effacer à compter de cette date sa condamnation, prononcée en violation de la Convention (§82). • Informations fournies par les autorités albanaises le 18/10/2010 : La Cour constitutionnelle saisie par l’avocat du requérant dans sa décision n° 22 rendue le 09/03/2010, a d’une part souligné la nécessité que le Parlement comble l’absence des dispositions législatives permettant la réouverture de procédures pénales et a d’autre part estimé que la Cour suprême, en tant qu'organe directement concerné par l'arrêt de la Cour européenne, est compétente pour réparer la violation. Le 23/9/2010, l’avocat du requérant, suite au rejet de sa demande par la Cour Suprême, a de nouveau saisi la Cour constitutionnelle. Les autorités ont également signalé par le courrier du 18/10/2010, que des amendements au Code de procédure pénale relatifs à la réouverture de procédures pénales devraient être adoptés dans un délai de six mois. Conformément à l'arrêt de la Cour européenne, les autorités italiennes ont annulé, le 25/02/2010, le décret d'extradition du requérant vers l'Albanie. Il semble que la demande d'extradition des autorités albanaises soit toujours valable. • Evaluation : Il est à noter que les autorités sont disposées à modifier le Code de procédure pénale. Toutefois, considérant que le jugement est en cours d'exécution déjà depuis fin 2008, des informations sont attendues sur les mesures spécifiques envisagées pour retirer la demande d'extradition et pour veiller, sans plus tarder, à l'acquittement définitif du requérant ainsi qu’à l'effacement de la condamnation de son casier judiciaire, en conformité avec l'arrêt de la Cour européenne. Mesures de caractère général : La Cour européenne a noté (§§59-60) que la situation à l’origine de la présente violation aurait pu être évitée si le parquet avait exercé un recours ordinaire dans le délai légal de dix jours prévu par l'article 147§3 du Code de procédure pénale, et que les arguments invoqués par le procureur pour justifier la demande d'autorisation de déposer un pourvoi hors délai n'étaient pas suffisants pour justifier la remise en cause de la nature définitive de l'arrêt. • Informations fournies par les autorités albanaises : L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été traduit et envoyé pour publication au centre des publications officielles. Suite à sa publication, une table ronde rassemblant des juges, des procureurs, des représentants du Ministère de la Justice et du Conseil Supérieur de la Justice s’est tenu pour discuter des mesures à prendre. L'arrêt, accompagné d'une note explicative, a été diffusé auprès des tribunaux de district, des cours d'appel, de la Cour suprême, de la Cour constitutionnelle, du parquet général et du tribunal pour les crimes graves. • Evaluation : La violation dans la présente affaire semble découler de l'approche adoptée par le parquet et de l'acceptation de celle-ci par les juridictions internes. • Des informations sont attendues sur les effets concrets des mesures prises notamment suite à la table ronde (par exemple sur la formation des procureurs et des juges). Les Délégués : 1.             regrettent vivement l'inaction des autorités pour exécuter le présent arrêt, définitif depuis déjà 2 ans, et soulignent que le requérant continue de subir les conséquences de l’annulation de son acquittement définitif ; 2.             notent à cet égard que les autorités se déclarent disposées à modifier le Code de procédure pénale dans un délai de six mois, afin de permettre la réouverture des procédures pénales ; relèvent également que le requérant a introduit une nouvelle requête devant la Cour Constitutionnelle, actuellement pendante ; 3.             soulignent dans ce contexte l’urgence d’obtenir rapidement la confirmation de l’acquittement du requérant, l’effacement de la condamnation de son casier judiciaire et le retrait de la demande d’extradition qui pèse sur lui en Italie, en conformité avec l’arrêt de la Cour européenne ; 4.             exhortent, en conséquence, l'Etat défendeur à agir sans délai et à fournir au Comité des informations sur les résultats obtenus, en vue de leur examen lors de sa prochaine réunion DH ; 5.             encouragent également les autorités à fournir des informations sur les mesures de caractère général adoptées ou envisagées afin de prévenir des violations semblables ; 6.             décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point lors de leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière des informations à fournir sur les mesures individuelles urgentes et sur les mesures générales.

32907/07           Gjyli, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right of access to a court due to the failure by the Ministry of Labour (as from 22/12/2005 to date) to enforce a final domestic judgment ordering his reinstatement in his post of Director of a vocational training centre (violation of Article 6§1).

It also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court offered no effective redress in that when the Constitutional Court found failure to enforce judgments in violation of appellants’ right of access to a court, it nonetheless did not compensate damage sustained, thus preventing the continuation of the alleged violation. The Court also noted that the bailiff’s action was not effective in this case (see §59).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage but reserved the application of Article 41 in respect of pecuniary damages.

The Court considered that the question of compensation for the failure to reinstate the applicant may be linked to the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning salary arrears (§67).

• Information provided by the Albanian authorities (05/10/2010): Negotiations have taken place between parties and partial agreement has been reached regarding the applicant’s reinstatement. The domestic judgments have been fully executed and the applicant has been awarded compensation.

As mentioned above, the judgment of the European Court on just satisfaction is awaited.

General measures: Failure to enforce final judicial decisions is a systemic problem in Albania, as underlined in other cases (Driza (33771/02, Section 4.2), Ramadhi and 5 others (38222/02, Section 4.2), etc). The issue is also being dealt with in the framework of the project “Removing the obstacles to the non-enforcement of domestic court judgments / Ensuring an effective implementation of domestic court judgments” funded by the Human Rights Trust Fund. The majority of cases relate to the non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and administrative decisions concerning restitution of property and/or compensation of former owners.

• Preliminary information provided by the Albanian authorities (05/10/2010): According to the authorities the introduction of the private bailiff service is expected to improve the efficiency of enforcement of final decisions in cases where the state is debtor.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged in case of failure to enforce final decisions ordering reinstatement.

6397/04            Bushati and others, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010

This case concerns the failure between 28/06/2001 and 14/02/2003, to enforce a Supreme Court decision of 2/04/2001 confirming partial recognition of the applicants' property claim and ordering the occupiers to cease occupation of the land without title (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court recalled that in such cases, in which the debtor is a private person, the state must act diligently to assist a creditor in execution of a judgment. The European Court considered that the bailiff's actions had been ineffectual and that they should have resorted to coercive measures to enforce the judgment (see §§ 80-86 of the judgment).

Moreover, the Court considered that owing to the bailiffs' failure to take adequate and sufficient measures to secure enforcement of the Supreme Court's decision, the applicants were left in a situation of uncertainty and have been unable to enjoy their possessions fully (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court reserved the application of Article 41 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

General measures: Failure to enforce final judicial decisions is a systemic problem in Albania, as underlined in other cases (Driza, 33771/02, Section 4.2), Ramadhi and 5 others (38222/02, Section 4.2, etc). The issue is also being dealt with in the framework of the project “Removing the obstacles to the enforcement of domestic court judgments / Ensuring an effective implementation of domestic court judgments” funded by the Human Rights Trust Fund. The majority of cases relate to the non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and administrative decisions concerning restitution of property and/or compensation of former owners.

• Preliminary information was provided by the Albanian authorities on 05/10/2010. To remedy such situations Albania, supported by a project financed by the European Commission, introduced the private bailiff service provided by Law No. 10031 of 11/12/2008. The introduction of the new service seeks in part to relieve the case-load of the state bailiff service. In addition, it is expected that the execution of final decisions in cases such as the present will be considerably improved.

• Additional explanations are needed on the concrete added value of this new bailiff service, and in particular on the application of coercive measures, when needed, to enforce final judgments. Information is also required on the possible financial burden on applicants when executing by means of the private bailiff service.

- 6 cases of non-enforcement of final domestic decisions concerning the right of the applicants to restitution or compensation in respect of property nationalised under the Communist regime 33771/02     Driza, 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 38222/02     Ramadhi and 5 others, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008 45264/04     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 35720/04+   Vrioni and others, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009[3] CM/Inf/DH(2010)20 These cases concern the failure to enforce final domestic court and administrative decisions relating to the right of the applicants to restitution or 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 applicant Ramazan Driza took possession of the 1650 m² plot of land (i.e. the land at issue) on 09/12/2008. Under the Albanian legislation the applicant enjoys all ownership rights in respect of the land at issue. • Assessment: In these circumstances, no other individual measure seems necessary. 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 authorities confirmed the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. • Assessment: In these circumstances, no other individual measure seems necessary. 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. 6) Vrioni case: The European Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41. No agreement has been reached so far between the Albanian government and the applicants. 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. c)The reform of the bailiff service: In the Beshiri case, the European Court considered that the failure of the authorities (including bailiffs) to enforce the judgment ordering the authorities to offer the applicant a form of compensation in lieu of the restitution of two plots of land, amounted to an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. To remedy this situation, Albania, supported by a project financed by the European Commission, introduced a private bailiff service approved by Law No. 10031 of 11/12/2008. With the introduction of the new Law, Albania will have a two-track system, state and private, functioning in parallel. Measures taken or envisaged by the Albanian authorities and pending issues: see CM/Inf/DH(2010)20 of 28/05/2010 (1086th meeting, June 2010). 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 envisaged 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 circumstances similar to the ones in 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. • Overall assessment: A draft action plan/ action report was provided by the Albanian authorities on 01/11/2010 on measures relating to enforcement of final domestic decisions concerning restitution of property/the right to compensation, currently under assessment. Bilateral contacts will continue to enable the authorities to provide a complete action plan/action report on general measures. The Deputies, 1.             recalled that the questions raised in these cases concern the systemic problem of non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and administrative decisions, ordering restitution of property nationalised during the communist regime or compensation of former owners; 2.             noted with interest the preliminary action plan and action report presented by the Albanian authorities, containing proposals made by the inter-ministerial committee which has the specific task of identifying a comprehensive strategy to address these questions; 3.             stressed however the crucial importance of urgently addressing the situation criticised by the rulings of the European Court, generating many similar violations; and therefore encouraged the authorities to adopt without further delay a comprehensive action plan, based on a comprehensive and coherent strategy accompanied by a detailed calendar for its implementation; 4.             decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH), in the light of a comprehensive action plan / action report to be provided by the Albanian authorities on the general measures.

- 6 affaires portant sur la non-exécution de décisions définitives internes concernant le droit des requérants à la restitution ou à l'indemnisation du fait de la nationalisation de biens immobiliers durant le régime communiste 33771/02     Driza, 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 38222/02     Ramadhi et 5 autres, arrêt du 13/11/2007, définitif le 02/06/2008 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 35720/04+   Vrioni et autres, arrêt du 29/09/2009, définitif le 29/12/2009[4] CM/Inf/DH(2010)20 Ces affaires concernent la non-exécution de décisions internes définitives, judiciaires et administratives, concernant le droit des requérants à la restitution ou l’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 : Le requérant, Ramazan Driza, a pris possession de la parcelle de 1650 m2 (c'est‑à‑dire du terrain en cause) le 09/12/2008. En application de la législation albanaise, il jouit de tous les droits de propriété sur le terrain en question. • Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. 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 autorités ont confirmé le versement de la satisfaction équitable accordée par la Cour au titre des préjudices matériel et moral. • Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. 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. 6) Affaire Vrioni : La Cour européenne a réservé la question de l'application de l'article 41. A ce jour, aucun accord n'a été dégagé entre le Gouvernement albanais et les requérants. 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. c) Réforme du service des huissiers : Dans l'affaire Beshiri, la Cour européenne a estimé que l'inexécution, par les autorités (y compris les huissiers), de l'arrêt leur ordonnant d'offrir au requérant une forme d'indemnisation au lieu de la restitution de deux terrains, équivalait à une ingérence dans le droit du requérant au respect de ses biens au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 à la Convention. Pour remédier à cette situation, l'Albanie a mis en place, dans le cadre d'un projet financé par la Commission européenne, un service privé d'huissiers approuvé par la loi n° 10031 du 11/12/2008. Avec cette nouvelle loi, elle disposera d'un système double, public et privé, fonctionnant parallèlement. Mesures adoptées ou envisagées par les autorités albanaises et questions en suspens : voir le CM/Inf/DH(2010)20 du 28/05/2010 (1086e réunion, juin 2010). 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. • Informations fournies par les autorités albanaises : 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 envisagées, 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 similaires de celles 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. • Evaluation générale : Un plan/bilan d'action préliminaire a été fourni par les autorités albanaises le 01/11/2010 sur les mesures concernant l’exécution des décisions internes définitives relatives à la restitution de propriétés / au droit à l’indemnisation. Il est en cours d'évaluation. Les contacts bilatéraux se poursuivront afin de permettre aux autorités de fournir un plan/bilan d'action complet sur les mesures générales. 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.             notent avec intérêt les plan et bilan d’action préliminaires présentés par les autorités albanaises, contenant les propositions formulées par le comité interministériel ayant pour mission spécifique d’identifier une stratégie globale pour résoudre ces questions ; 3.             soulignent cependant l’importance cruciale de remédier rapidement à la situation incriminée par les arrêts de la Cour européenne, génératrice de très nombreuses violations similaires ; encouragent par conséquent les autorités à adopter, sans plus tarder, un plan d’action complet, fondé sur une stratégie cohérente et globale et assorti d’un calendrier détaillé pour sa mise en œuvre ; 4.             décident de reprendre l'examen de ces points lors de leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière du plan d’action/bilan d’action complet à fournir par les autorités albanaises sur les mesures générales.

- 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: Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants asked for the enforcement of the judgment given by the High Court in May 2003 or alternatively compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages they sustained because of the failure to enforce it. The European Court awarded the applicants an amount of just satisfaction in respect of all damages.

• Assessment: No other individual measure seems to be necessary under these circumstances.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court in this case was published in the Official Bulletin of Andorra on 29/04/2009.

• The information submitted by the Andorran authorities concerning the general measures is being assessed.

- 12 cases against Armenia / 12 affaires contre l'Arménie

- 4 cases concerning the degrading treatment on account of the applicants’ detention conditions, breach of the right to a fair trial and of the right of appeal in criminal matters

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

22387/05           Karapetyan, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 27/01/2010

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, Mkhitaryan and Karapetyan) 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) (DH).

24173/06           Asatryan, judgment of 09/02/2010, final on 09/05/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security in that she was unlawfully detained from 17.50 on 23/09/2005 until 24/11/2005 when the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal decided to prolong her detention (violation of Article 5§1(c)). 

On 23/09/2005, at 17.50, the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of attempted murder and on 26/09/2005 formal charges were brought against her. On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash Court granted the investigator’s motion and ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of two months to be calculated from 23/09/2005. On 22/11/2005 the District Court dismissed the investigators’ motion. However, the applicant was not released and 20 minutes before the expiry of her detention period she was taken to the Court of Appeal to take part in the hearing on the appeal lodged by the prosecutor against the decision of 22/11/2005. That hearing was adjourned and the applicant was taken back to the detention facility. On 24/11/2005 at 13.00 the Court of Appeal resumed the examination of the prosecutor’s appeal and quashed the District Court’s 22/11/2005 decision, in the absence of both the applicant and her lawyers.

The European Court noted that under domestic law a motion to prolong detention must be submitted to the trial court no later than ten days before the expiry of the detention period and the trial court must take a decision no later than five days before the expiry of the detention period (Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The administration of the detention facility must immediately to release any detainee whose detention period, authorised by a court has expired (Article 141 of the CCP).

The European Court observed that neither the investigator nor the District Court complied with the time-limits set by domestic law and that the government had failed to submit any explanation for the delays. It further noted, among other things, that the Court of Appeal continued to treat the applicant as a detainee, even informally instructing the relevant officials to return her to the detention facility, and that her lawyers’ attempts to secure her release were ignored. The Court concluded that the case does not concern delay in complying with the legal rules requiring a detainee’s release, but rather the reluctance of the authorities, including the courts, to comply with such rules.

Lastly, the European Court rejected the government’s arguments as to the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as it found it doubtful that a separate complaint lodged with the courts against the administration’s failure to release the applicant after her return to the detention facility following the court hearing could have produced any different result or secured her release.

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

General measures: The judgment has been translated into Armenian and sent out to relevant authorities. The Armenian translation of the judgment is also available on the web-site of the Ministry of Justice (www.moj.am).

• An action plan/action report is still awaited.

32283/04           Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan, judgment of 17/06/2008, final on 17/09/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant company’s freedom of expression on account of the refusal, by the National Television and Radio Commission (NTRC), on seven occasions in 2002 and 2003, to deliver to the applicant a broadcasting license (violation of Article 10).

The European Court concluded that there had been an interference with the applicant company’s freedom to impart information and ideas and that this interference had not met the requirement of lawfulness under the European Convention. The Court noted in particular that a procedure which did not require a licensing body to justify its decisions did not provide adequate protection against arbitrary interference by a public authority with the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Individual measures: The Court awarded the applicant company just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It rejected the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage not least because it found no causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged. The Committee of Ministers is currently examining the individual measures to be taken, by the domestic authorities pursuant to Armenia’s obligations under Article 46 of the Convention, in order to erase, as far as possible, the consequences of the violation.

At the 1043rd meeting (December 2008), the Permanent Representative of Armenia stated that in this case individual measures were very much linked to general measures as a new call for tender would not satisfy the requirements of the European Court’s case-law if the Law on radio and television were not first modified. Furthermore, he invoked certain technical difficulties linked to the transition to digital broadcasting (cf. DD(2008)679).

• Appeals lodged by the applicant before domestic courts: On 20/05/2009, the applicant company sent a letter (cf. DD(2009)307E distributed at the 1059th meeting) informing the Committee of Ministers that, on the basis of the European Court’s judgment and of Article 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which provides reopening), it lodged two appeals before the Court of Cassation to reopen the proceedings for judicial review in 2004 of the NTRC decisions at issue, but that these two appeals were dismissed on February 2009. The applicant company complains that no individual measure has been taken so far by the authorities following the judgment of the European Court. The applicant’s lawyer informed the Committee of Ministers (cf. DD(2010)72 of 15/02/2010, distributed for the 1078th meeting and declassified on 24/03/2010) that he had lodged an appeal before the Constitutional Court arguing that Article 204.28 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the basis of which his  appeals before the Court of Cassation had been dismissed, was unconstitutional and that these proceedings before the constitutional court was still pending.

• Information provided at the 1078th meeting, March 2010: The Armenian authorities stated that, pending the issue of a new tender, no measure in favour of the applicant company is possible because any measure other than an effective and transparent conduct of a tender process would lead to a situation in which the rights of third parties would be infringed. The Committee of Ministers took note of this position.

The Armenian authorities, which were invited in September 2009 and March 2010 to provide full information on the remedies pursued by the applicant before the competent national judicial authorities, sent on 9/04/2010 a translation of the decision of the Constitutional Court of 23/02/2010, in which it noted that Article 204.28 of the Code of Civil Procedure had already been declared unconstitutional in its decision of 28/11/2007 and that the applicant’s right to apply for reopening under “newly revealed circumstances” had not expired.

• New application before the European Court: The applicant party informed the Committee of Ministers that it had lodged a new application before the European Court of Human Rights in October 2009.

• Information concerning a new call for tenders

• Information provided by the Armenian authorities (1065th meeting, September 2009):  A new call for tenders, in which the applicant will be given the possibility to participate, was scheduled to take place in July 2010.

In the decision adopted at the same meeting, the Committee invited the respondent state to keep it informed of all progress made in preparing the call for tenders, as well as of any interim measures that they may envisage in favour of the applicant company. 

• Information provided at the 1078th meeting, March 2010:  The Armenian authorities confirmed the holding of a call for tenders in July 2010.

The Committee of Ministers recalled, in this context, the recommendations and declarations it had adopted on freedom of expression, media pluralism and diversity. 

The Armenian authorities have been invited to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the progress of the call for tenders.

The applicant company informed the Committee of Ministers (see DH-DD(2010)369E distributed on 2/08/2010) that no decision has so far been taken on the merits of its applications to reopen the 2004 proceedings. It also complained that under the “Law amending and supplementing the Law on Television and Radio” adopted on 10/06/2010 the NTRC is no longer under an obligation to provide explanations for its decisions to refuse broadcasting licences and that some other amendments may place it at significant disadvantage in tendering.

• No new information has been made available by the Armenian authorities for the present meeting.

General measures: It appears from the European Court’s judgment that the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting has been changed since the facts of the case. On 3/12/2003 the law was amended with effect on 31/01/2004 providing that: “...The National Commission shall give proper reasons for its decisions to select a licence-holder, refuse a licence or invalidate a licence”.

• Information provided by the Armenia authorities (1043rd and 1065th meetings, December 2008 and September 2009): The Law on Radio and Television has been amended to adapt it to the switch to digital transmission and to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The new amendments were adopted on 28/04/2009. The new provision regarding the obligation of the NTRC to justify its decisions reads as follows: “The National Television and Radio Commission shall give full reasons for its decisions to award, reject or revoke a broadcasting licence and ensure the transparency and accessibility of its decisions”. 

Furthermore, the judgment of the Court has been translated into Armenian and published in relevant official publications, both print and electronic, of the Republic of Armenia. The text is available, inter alia, on the official websites of the Ministry of Justice of Armenia, www.moj.am, and of the judiciary of the Republic of Armenia, www.court.am. The Armenian text of the judgment has also been sent to the National Television and Radio Commission and to the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia.

Non-governmental organisations informed the Committee of Ministers (see DH-DD(2010)375E distributed on 10/08/2010) that the “Law amending and supplementing the Law on Television and Radio” adopted on 10/06/2010 contains provisions not in conformity with Article 10 of the Convention and the conclusion of the European Court in the Meltex judgment. They underlined in particular that:

-           the NTRC does not have to justify its decisions to refuse broadcasting licences. The new provision now reads as follows “The National Commission shall decide the winner of the competition on the basis of the results of the point-based vote. The decision of the National Commission shall be properly substantiated and reasoned”.

-           when two companies receive an equal number of votes in a tendering procedure, preference will be given to the company which is already entitled to broadcast.

At the 1092nd meeting (September 2010), the Deputies noted with concern that the recent amendments to the TV and Radio Broadcasting Act no longer explicitly required that reasons are given to unsuccessful competitors for a broadcasting license. However the Representative of Armenia informed them that the Government Agent made an official statement according to which “Article 49(3) of the TV and Radio Broadcasting Act should be interpreted in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention, and in the light of the Meltex judgment, such that a single decision of the Commission provides a full and proper substantiation and reasoning of the results of the points-based vote, in respect of both the winner of the competition and all other participants”

The Armenian authorities were invited to provide the Committee of Ministers with a comprehensive overview of the legislative and regulatory framework to substantiate the unambiguous obligation of the NRTC under Armenian law to give reasons for its decisions to award or not, or to revoke broadcasting licences, in the framework of competitions or applications for broadcasting, as well as with information as to the concrete implementation of this framework in respect of the ongoing tender procedures.

• No information has been made available for this meeting. This request has therefore been recalled by letter of 9/11/2010.

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[5]

45081/04           Stepanyan, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 27/01/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial due to the lack of an oral hearing before the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant was the representative of a regional opposition party involved in monitoring the 2003 presidential elections. He participated in a major demonstration held on 10/04/2004. On 20 May 2004 the applicant was sentenced to eight days’ administrative detention under former Article 182 of the CAO (Code of Administrative Offences) for “… violating public order and disobeying the lawful orders of police officers”. The applicant appealed to the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal. The latter did not hold an oral hearing and examined the appeal solely on the basis of documents and the evidence given by the two arresting police officers. On 8/06/2004 the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the applicant “did commit the acts in question”.

The European Court noted that although it was not clear from the relevant provisions of the CAO whether the jurisdiction of the President of the Military and Criminal Court of Appeal was limited only to questions of law or also fact, it appears from the decision of the President that he had examined not only questions of law but also fact. The European Court found that in the particular circumstances of the case, it was necessary to assess directly the evidence given in person by the applicant and two police officers in question in order to meet the requirements of a fair trial.

Individual measures: The applicant is obviously no longer detained.

• Assessment: No other individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: The judgment has been translated into Armenian and sent out to all the relevant authorities. It was published in the Official Gazette No. 50 (784). The Armenian translation of the judgment is also available on the web-site of the Ministry of Justice (www.moj.am). 

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.

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.

For the relevant domestic legal provision on re-opening of civil proceedings see the notes in the case of Paykar yev Haghtanak Ltd (21638/03, Section 4.1).

• 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.

31761/04           Khachatryan, judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the authorities’ failure to ensure enforcement of a final domestic judgment (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as they did not receive monies due to them under the said final judgment (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

The applicants worked for a company, Hrazdanmash, the majority shareholder of which was the state.  No salary was paid to the staff for 1998-2000, as the company was experiencing financial problems. On 17/05/2001 the trade union instituted court proceedings against Hrazdanmash in the interests of the staff, seeking arrears for unpaid salary and other benefits. On 2/07/2001 the Kotayk Regional Court granted the claim and ordered Hrazdanmash to pay a certain sum to the applicants. No appeal was lodged against this judgment which became final. Subsequently, the applicants were paid partially, but the judgment was never fully executed.

In its analysis of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the European Court noted in particular that most of the funds available were transferred to the state budget by a government decree which the applicants could not contest before national courts and that in such circumstances the non-enforcement of the judgment was due to reasons which the bailiffs could not influence.

The Court, taking into account the fact that the Hrazdanmash was not sufficiently independent, either institutionally or operationally, concluded that the state was responsible for the salary debts incurred.

The European Court noted that by failing for years to take necessary steps to comply with the final judgment the authorities had infringed the essence of the applicants’ right to a court and prevented the applicants from receiving in full the money to which they were entitled, which amounted to a disproportionate interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages, the sum allowed for pecuniary damages corresponding to the outstanding debts due to them.

General measures:

• Information provided by the authorities (letter of 19/10/2010): The judgment has been translated into Armenian and sent out to all relevant authorities. The Armenian translation of the judgment is available at the web-site of the Ministry of Justice (www.moj.am).

• An action plan/action report is still awaited.  

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.

On 30/09/2010 the authorities informed the Secretariat that the judgment in this case was being translated and that this translation would be finalised soon.

- 30 cases against Austria / 30 affaires contre l'Autriche

27900/04           Palushi, judgment of 22/12/2009, final on 22/03/2010

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted upon the applicant, who at the material time was being held in custody in Vienna Police Prison with a view to expulsion for illegal stay and the ensuing lack of medical care in solitary confinement (two violations of Article 3).

As regards the applicant’s allegations that he had been stabbed behind his ears with ballpoint pens and the manner in which he was carried to the individual cell, such that his back dragged along the edges of the steps, the European Court found that his injuries had been established beyond reasonable doubt by the medical reports and witnesses. The Court considered that the treatment of the applicant, who had been on hunger strike for three weeks and was in a physically and mentally weakened state, must have caused him physical and mental pain and suffering and had been such as to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of debasing him and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance.

The European Court observed that the applicant was placed in solitary confinement despite the risks implied by his hunger-strike, such as loss of consciousness, on the assessment of a paramedic, who according to the 1994 CPT report had received only basic training, and had been refused access to a doctor for three days. Taken together, those factors must have caused him suffering and humiliation beyond that which is inevitable in a situation of detention.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

General measures: The Austrian authorities provided an action report dated 26/05/2010) according to which a copy of the European Court’s judgment had been sent to the relevant ministry. A German translation would be published by the Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte in Newsletter 2010. The Austrian authorities also referred to the latest report by the CPT and the Austrian commitment to improve conditions for detainees.

The Austrian authorities consider that the judgment has been fully implemented.

• This information is being assessed.

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.

                        - 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 Austria and 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 (2884/04, Section 4.2).

49616/06           Koottummel, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that, in April 2006 the applicant was denied an oral hearing before the Administrative Court in proceedings concerning applications under the Aliens’ Employment Act for a grant of an employment permit (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court could not find that in the present case the subject matter of the proceedings before the Administrative Court, namely a highly technical issue or of mere legal nature, was of such a nature as to dispense with its obligation to hold a hearing.

Individual measures: The European Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage as it could discern no causal link between the violation and the damage alleged.

• Information is awaited on possible individual measures envisaged or taken to remedy the violation found.

General measures: The Austrian authorities provided an action report dated 7/6/2010 according to which a German translation of the European Court’s judgment had been published by the Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte in Newsletter 2009/6. The Austrian authorities consider that the judgment has thereby been fully implemented.

The Austrian authorities also indicated that the Federal Chancellery has sent a circular note to Federal Ministries, the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court, the Supreme Court, the Asylum Court, Parliament, the governments of all nine Austrian Länder, the Liaison Office of the Länder with the Federal authorities, all human rights co-ordinators at the federal ministries, all independent administrative panels of the Länder, as well as all directorates-general of the Federal Chancellery (Prime Minister's Office). This circular note was also published on the website of the Federal Chancellery.

• This information is being assessed.

30003/02           Stojakovic, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007

The case concerns the lack of an oral hearing before a ministerial Appeals Commission, in October 2000, in proceedings to demote the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the applicant was in principle entitled to a hearing before the first and only tribunal, i.e. the Appeals Commission. It considered there was no exceptional circumstance to justify dispensing with a hearing in this case, the more so in that the applicant had asked the Appeals Commission to hear a witness in the context of a hearing and later complained to the Constitutional Court that the Appeals Commission had taken its decision after a private hearing.

Individual measures:

• Information is expected on the current situation of the applicant and in particular whether he may request reopening of the proceedings in question.

• Information on the individual measures was provided (23/03/2010) by the Austrian authorities. This information is being assessed. 

General measures: According to Article 40§1 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) which governs hearings before Appeals Commissions, “oral hearings shall be held in the presence of all known parties and the necessary witnesses and experts”. The European Court noted that it was a consistent practice of administrative authorities to hold oral hearings in camera unless the law provided otherwise, as it was commonly understood that the principle of publicity did not extend to administrative proceedings.

• Information is expected on current practice before Appeals Commissions with respect to the right to a hearing and on measures taken or envisaged to adapt it to the European Court's requirements in similar situations.

• Information on the individual measures was provided (23/03/2010) by the Austrian authorities. This information is being assessed.

A summary of the European Court's judgments and decisions concerning Austria is regularly prepared by the Federal Chancellery and disseminated widely to relevant Austrian authorities as well as Parliament and courts. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the internal database of the Austrian Ministry of Justice (RIS).

Judgments of the European Court concerning Austria are habitually published in a summary version via www.menschenrechte.ac.at together with a link to the European Court's judgments in English.

23960/02          Zeman, judgment of 29/06/2006, final on 29/09/2006 and of 10/01/2008 (Article 41) - Friendly settlement

The case concerns sexual discrimination against the applicant due to the application of the Amended Pension and Pension Allowance Act, entitling widowers to 40% of the pension their deceased wife had acquired before January 1995 while widows would be entitled to 60%, without basing this distinction on any objective and reasonable justification (Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: In the judgment of 10/01/2008 (Article 41) the European Court noted that a friendly settlement had been reached between the applicant and the competent authorities covering all the applicant’s claims in respect of his widower’s pension.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: The European Court’s judgment was published in the Newsletter of the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (NL 2006, p. 152 (NL 06/3/15), available online at http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/06_3/06_3_15).

On 23/01/2007 it was sent to the Constitutional Service of the Federal Chancellery, the Vienna Municipality and the Appeals Board of the Vienna Municipality. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the internal database of the Austrian Ministry of Justice (RIS).

• Information is awaited on further legislative or other measures envisaged or taken to prevent new, similar violations and ensuring an equal treatment of survivor's pension rights acquired prior to 1995.

20082/02           Zehentner, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

The case concerns disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home due to the judicial sale of her apartment in 1999 to pay off her creditors without her having been able to participate effectively in the proceedings (violation of Article 8).

The European Court found that the applicant, for whom a guardian had been appointed in 2000, had lacked legal capacity for years by the time the judicial sale of the apartment and her ensuing eviction in 2000 had taken place, so she had been unable either to object or to resort to available remedies. In addition, the absolute nature of the time-limit for appealing against a judicial sale provided in domestic law prevented her from obtaining a review of her case. Given that persons without legal capacity were particularly vulnerable, the Court found that specific justification was required. The Austrian Supreme Court, rejecting the applicant’s extraordinary appeal by decision of 30/01/2002, had not given any such justification and had not weighed the conflicting interests of the purchaser in good faith and the debtor lacking legal capacity.

The case also concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions in this respect (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Court noted that even if the proceedings in this case had been between private parties, the state was under an obligation to afford both parties the necessary procedural guarantees. It found the procedural mechanism suggested by the government an unfeasible scenario for the applicant, a person lacking legal capacity, to be able to recover possessions of which she was deprived without adequate guarantees.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

• The issue of individual measures is being assessed.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Austrian authorities (24/02/2010): A German translation of the judgment was published in the Newsletter of the Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte 2009/4, pp. 212, in the Österreichische Juristenzeitung 2010/1 as well as in the Fachzeitschrift für Ehe- und Familienrechte (EF-Z) 2010/17.

The authorities also indicated that the Federal Chancellery has sent a circular note to the Federal Ministries, the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court, the Supreme Court, the Asylum Court, Parliament, the governments of all nine Austrian Länder, the Liaison Office of the Länder with the Federal authorities, all human rights co-ordinators at the federal ministries, all independent administrative panels of the Länder, as well as all directorates-general of the Federal Chancellery (Prime Minister's Office). This circular note was also published on the website of the Federal Chancellery.

The authorities consider that, as the case was a solitary incident, publication and dissemination of the judgment, including an in-depth analysis in an official circular note will prevent similar violations in the future.

• This information is being assessed.

31356/04           Goriany, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/05/2010

The case concerns the excessive length of five different sets of disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Council of the Vienna Bar Chamber. These proceedings began between 14/07/1998 and 29/01/2001, and ended on 26/02/2004 (they lasted from 3 years and 1 month to 5 years and 7 months at first instance) (violation of Article 6§1).

The case is the first case concerning the length of disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Council of the Vienna Bar Chamber.

• No action plan or report has yet been provided by the authorities.

- 10 cases mainly concerning the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative authorities and courts and lack of an effective remedy and / or the absence 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

12702/08           Otto, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

20089/06           Puchstein, judgment of 28/01/2010, final on 28/04/2010

45369/07           Rambauske, judgment of 28/01/2010, final on 28/04/2010

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

20087/06           Stechauner, judgment of 28/01/2010, final on 28/04/2010

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 criminal charges before administrative 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.

The Almesberger case concerned proceedings against the applicant for an offence under the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, which began on 1/4/1999 and ended on 24/11/2006 (seven years and seven months).

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 being assessed.

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 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).

• 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 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.

- 10 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

13471/06           Almesberger, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

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 administrative 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.

The Almesberger case concerned proceedings against the applicant for an offence under the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, which began on 1/4/1999 and ended on 24/11/2006 (seven years and seven months).

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 being assessed.

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).

• 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 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). The judgment has been sent out to the Federal Chancellery, the Federal Ministry of Justice and to the Federal Ministry of Finance.

- 22 cases against Azerbaijan / 22 affaires contre l'Azerbaïdjan

4762/05            Mammadov Mikayil, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

The case concerns a breach of the right to life due to the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation to establish the extent of the state’s responsibility for the death of the applicant’s wife (procedural violation of Article 2).

The applicant and his family are internally displaced persons. In 1993 they left their permanent place of residence to live in various places and at the end of 2003 the applicant and his family moved into an old, unoccupied administrative building. On 26/03/2004 a group of public agents and police officers arrived in the applicant's new dwelling to evict them. At an unspecified time after the officials arrival, the applicant's wife poured kerosene over herself and lit it. She suffered multiple second- and third-degree burns from which she died in hospital on 30/03/2004.

A preliminary inquiry into the facts of the case was carried out by the Sumgayit City Prosecutor’s Office. By a decision of 14/05/2004 the investigator decided not to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision, which was dismissed on 1/04/2005 by the Sumgayit City Court. On 25/05/2005 the Prosecutor General quashed the decision of the Sumgayit City Prosecutor's Office of 14/05/2004 and on 14/06/2005 the case was forwarded to the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office for an additional inquiry. On 17/08/2005 the investigator issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings. Following this decision, the applicant sent a number of letters to the Prosecutor General's Office but did not lodge a judicial complaint. On 7/06/2006 the First Deputy to the Prosecutor General quashed the decision of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office of 17/08/2005 refusing to institute criminal proceedings. On 15/11/2006 the investigator from the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office again suspended the investigation. The applicant lodged a judicial complaint against this decision, which was quashed by the Binagadi District Court on 19/03/2007 and the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office instructed to resume the investigation. On 9/04/2007 the investigation was resumed. However, on 25/04/2007 the investigator of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office decided to suspend the investigation again. The applicant lodged a judicial complaint against this last decision (of 25/04/2007). On 7/06/2007 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant's complaint and upheld the investigator's decision. On 4/07/2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the Binagadi District Court's decision. On 16/09/2008 the investigator of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office issued a decision terminating the criminal proceedings on account of the absence of corpus delicti.

Before the European Court, the applicant complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for the death of his wife and had failed to investigate the circumstances of her death effectively.

The Court considered that, owing to the lack of relevant factual details, doubts remain that the responsibility for the applicant’s wife death might have lain at least in part with the authorities. However, having assessed the available material, the Court found those doubts insufficient to establish conclusively that the authorities acted in a manner incompatible with their positive obligation to guarantee the right to life. As regards the investigation into the death of the applicant’s wife the Court found it inadequate as it had not covered all the issues relevant to the assessment of the state’s responsibility for the incident.

In particular, the investigation had been limited to the question as to whether the state agents had incited the applicant’s wife to commit suicide, while it had never examined whether they had done everything necessary to prevent her death or to minimise her injuries.

Moreover, the investigation had been characterised by many other shortcomings:

-           as the manner in which the operation was conducted at the scene of the incident was a prima facie problematic issue in this case, the investigative authorities should have sought from their relevant police superiors a more detailed explanation as to the planning of the operation, as to how the chain of command had been organised on the scene, and as to what specific orders, if any, had been given to individual police officers after the police had arrived at the applicant's dwelling, but none of these steps were taken; 

-           the authorities had not tried to obtain the victim’s testimony before she died and failed to provide explanation of this;

-           the authorities had not attempted to reconstruct the sequence and duration of the events or to address the discrepancies in the witness statements;

-           the domestic investigation had lasted more than four years, having been adjourned and resumed a number of times without any evident progress in its effectiveness and without any substantive improvement in the adequacy of the measures taken ;

-           lastly, by only granting the applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings in June 2006, the authorities had denied him the possibility of effectively intervening in the investigation up to that point.

Individual measures: On 16/08/2010, the applicant’s representative wrote to draw the attention of the Committee of Ministers to the following:

-           he could obtain no clear reply from the authorities as to whether the European Court’s judgment had been sent to the Plenum of the Supreme Court for the re-examination of the case;

-           he had no clear understanding as to whether there had been a new inquiry into the facts of the case but if there had been, he wondered why the applicant had not been involved it.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (2/11/2010): The Binagadi District Prosecutor’s Office renewed the examination of the case of the applicant’s wife in the light of the Court’s findings. All the witnesses were interrogated to find out whether the police officers had taken all necessary measures to prevent her death. On the basis of the investigation provided, the Binagadi District Prosecutor’s Office decided on 11/06/2010 to dismiss the criminal proceedings in the case as the acts of the representatives of the Sumgayit Executive Authority and of the Police disclosed none of the elements of the crimes laid down in Articles 308, 309, 311 and 125 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. A copy of the decision of the Binagadi District Prosecutor’s Office, in Azerbaijani, was attached to this letter.

• Bilateral contacts are under way to clarify some points concerning the new inquiry carried out after the European Court’s judgment and the conformity of this new inquiry with the criteria of the European Court’s case law.

General measures

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (2/11/2010):

The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Azerbaijani and sent out to prosecutors and police officers. It was also published in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights (12/2009).

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.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities at the1086th meeting (June 2010): Following the European Court’s judgment, the Office of the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to carry out an investigation of the facts of the case.

• Information is awaited on the development of this investigation. In this respect, it was recalled 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.

General measures:

            1) Substantive violation of Article 3: 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.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (1086th meeting): The Court’s judgment was sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for dissemination to police officers. The authorities plan to organise training courses for the Police Academy dedicated to the role of the police during demonstrations. Special attention will be given during this training to the use of force and special equipment by police officers.

At the 1086th meeting (June 2010) the following issues were raised and detailed and rapid information was requested on:

-           the regulatory framework for the use of force, as the facts of this case show that the law is not being correctly implemented;

-           the training of police, in particular a timeframe for the organisation of such training;

-           any existing monitoring of the use of force which would ensure accountability for force used and, where necessary, any measure envisaged to establish such independent monitoring.

            2) Procedural violation of Article 3: The European 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.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (1086th meeting): The Court’s judgment was sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office for dissemination among prosecutors. The authorities plan to organise courses at the Training Centre of the General Prosecutor’s Office which will cover the procedural aspects of investigation of alleged ill-treatment, such as “rights of applicants to call for witnesses, initiating forensic examination, rights and duties of the investigation authorities to secure independent and reliable forensic evidences and necessity of duly informing applicants about decisions adopted during the investigation“ and procedure.

• During the meeting the following issues were raised and detailed and rapid information was requested on:

-               dissemination of the judgment to civil courts, as it appears from the European Court’s judgment that the civil court did not respect the procedure as it should have (§123) and did not provide legal reasoning for its decision (§122).

-               the planned training: when it will take place, the detailed content, in particular concerning the duty of investigative authorities to secure independent and reliable forensic evidence (as this issue is raised for the second time by the Court – see the case of Mammadov (Jalaloglu), 34445/04, Section 4.2)

-               the status of “victim of crime” which entails several procedural rights for the victim (§62) and the authorities’ own assessment as to whether it would be appropriate to facilitate the granting of this status.

On 14/06/2010, the Secretariat wrote to the Government Agent’s Office to recall these queries.

No further information has been provided.

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.

9852/03            Hummatov, judgment of 29/11/2007, final on 29/02/2008

The case concerns degrading treatment suffered by the applicant due to the lack of appropriate medical treatment of the tuberculosis he had contracted in detention (violation of Article 3). The European Court considered that the inadequate medical treatment in Gobustan Prison must have caused the applicant considerable mental suffering, diminishing his human dignity and amounting to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy both in law and in practice, to complain of the lack of adequate medical treatment (violation of Article 13).

Lastly, the case concerns a violation of the right to a public hearing and therefore to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

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

At the 1028th meeting (June 2008), it was noted that the applicant had been given a presidential pardon in September 2004 and the issue was raised as to whether the Azerbaijani authorities envisaged any further  measure following the European Court’s Judgment.

• The Azerbaijani authorities’ assessment on this point is awaited.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 3: The Court recalled that under Article 3 of the Convention, the state must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and wellbeing are adequately secured

At the 1028th meeting, the Representative of Azerbaijan stated that Gobustan prison was being demolished and rebuilt with all necessary medical services.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 15/10/2008): The Azerbaijani Ministry of Justice and the ICRC are carrying out a special “Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course” (DOTS) Programme with the purpose of eradicating the propagation of tuberculosis in places of detention. According to the statistical data collected since beginning the implementation of the DOTS Programme (1995) 8 982 prisoners received medical treatment, 473 of them are still under medical treatment and 8 509 have already finished their treatment.

• Assessment: a regular update of this information is awaited.

2) Violation of Article 13: At the 1028th meeting, the Representative of Azerbaijan quoted Article 15.2 of the Code on  Execution of Punishments which lays down that it is prohibited and punishable to deprive a person of medical treatment, and Article 10 which provides that every convict is entitled to medical treatment, including both out-patient and in-patient hospital treatment.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 15/10/2008): The Code on Execution of Punishments provides various forms of supervision of prisons: public supervision, supervision by the domestic courts, Ombudsman and prosecution authority. For example, any prisoner has a right to file a complaint with the Ombudsman which must be sent within 24 hours and not be subject to censure. Moreover, by an Order of the Minister of Justice from 15/12/2004, an Inspection Unit for the Supervision of Prisons was set up within Ministry of Justice. Moreover, a Human Rights and Public Relations Department was set up by a Decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan within the Ministry of Justice.

A Medical Department was established within the structure of the Ministry of Justice. It is directly subordinate to the Minister of Justice and independent from the Prison Service. A Public Committee has been established to provide public supervision of prisons, It consists of representatives of local NGOs who have the right to visit and monitor any places of detention and draft special reports to be presented to the Minister of Justice. Moreover, in this regard the government co-operates with a number of international organisations such as the International Red Cross, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, etc. For example, according to a special agreement signed between the government and the International Red Cross, ICRC representatives have the right to monitor prisons and present special reports to the Minister of Justice.”

• Detailed information is awaited on remedies available to prisoners wishing to complain of the lack of adequate medical treatment and concrete examples of successful application such remedies.

3) Violation of Article 6§1: The Court noted that the main reason for reopening the applicant's case was to remedy the alleged lack of a fair hearing at first instance, as the applicant had been recognised as a “political prisoner” upon Azerbaijan's accession to the Council of Europe and Azerbaijan had committed itself to give a “re-trial” to all political prisoners including the applicant. The Court recalled that to hold a trial other than in an ordinary courtroom, in particular in a place like a prison to which the general public in principle has no access, presents a serious obstacle to its public character and that in such case, the state is under an obligation to take compensatory measures to ensure that the public and the media are duly informed of the venue of the hearing and are granted effective access. Finally, the European Court finds that the Court of Appeal failed to adopt adequate compensatory measures to counterbalance the detrimental effect which the holding of the applicant's trial in the closed area of Gobustan Prison had on its public character.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 15/10/2008):

- Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was published in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights (4/2008) and sent to the Ministry of Justice for distribution prisons and courts.

- Training measures: More than twenty seminars and training courses 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 were 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 for the position of judge in the Judicial-Legal Council and Training Centre of the Prosecutor General’s Office.

- Legal framework regarding public hearings: Article 127 of the Constitution and Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that all court hearings shall be public, with the participation of press but in order not to disclose state, public, private and family secrets, the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial. Moreover, according to Article 14 of the Judges’ Code of Ethical Conduct, adopted on 22/06/2007, judges shall provide participation of the public and press during court hearings; this principle may be restricted on the base of circumstances stipulated by law.

• Assessment: Due note has been taken of the legal framework regarding the public character of hearings in ordinary cases. Nevertheless, as these provisions already existed at the material time, further information is awaited on rules and means developed to ensure public hearings in specific cases such as the present one which may call for “compensatory measures”; information as to whether special security arrangements exist in ordinary court rooms or are being planned, to avoid holding hearing outside ordinary court rooms would be useful (cf. §150 of the Court’s judgment).

• No information has been provided in this case since October 2008.

16528/05           Hajibeyli, judgment of 10/07/2008, final on 10/10/2008[6]

37083/03           Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 10/05/2010[7]

                        - 4 cases concerning the right of freedom of association[8]

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

37700/05           Seyidzade, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010[9]

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

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

- 2 cases concerning the failure to summons the accused in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court

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

38228/05           Maksimov, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

These cases concern violations of the applicants right to a fair trial in that they had not been informed about the hearing of their cassation appeal before the Supreme Court and, therefore, could not be present at the hearing (violation of Article 6§1).

The Supreme Court heard the applicants’ appeals in their absence on 7/12/2004 (Abbasov) and 24/11/2005 (Maksimov) and dismissed them as unsubstantiated.

In the case of Maksimov, the Court held that the respondent state must take all measures to reopen the cassation appeal proceedings brought by the applicant.

Individual measures:

1) Abbasov case: 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 property 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 the remainder of his sentence following another presidential pardon decree of 18/08/2003.

The European Court awarded just satisfaction 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 Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court for reconsideration. The re-examination of the case was 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

2) Maksimov case: The applicant is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison. In its judgment, the Court held the respondent state must take all measures to reopen the cassation appeal proceedings brought by the applicant.

In 1994 the applicant was arrested and brought to trial as one of the planners and perpetrators of a bomb attack in the Baku Metro, carried out on 19/03/1994. On 3/05/1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a court of first instance for especially serious crimes, found that the applicant, together with other accused, was guilty. The court convicted the applicant under the Criminal Code of 1960 in force at the time, and sentenced him to death with confiscation of property. This judgment was final and not subject to appeal under the rules of criminal procedure applicable at the time. In 2000 a new Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”) and new Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan were adopted. On 14/07/2000, before the entry into force of the new CCrP on 1/09/2000, Parliament passed a transitional law allowing appeals to be lodged under the new CCrP against final, first-instance judgments delivered in accordance with the old criminal procedure rules (“the Transitional Law”).

On 4/08/2004, the applicant, using the opportunity provided by this law, lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The applicant was informed in June 2005 that his appeal had been rejected by the Supreme Court on 12/04/2005. On 8/07/2005 the applicant lodged a further cassation appeal which was dismissed by the Plenum of the Supreme Court on 24/11/2005.

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.

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

13652/06           Humbatov, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

The case concerns the failure to enforce a final judgment of 31/05/2001 ordering the restoration of the applicant’s right of use of a plot on which buildings had been constructed by a third party, as well as the demolition of these buildings (violations of Article 6 §1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.) 

The European Court held that, within three months from the date on which the judgment became final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention (i.e. by 3/06/2010), the respondent state should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the domestic court's judgment of 31/05/ 2001. In 1996 the applicant obtained the right of use of a state-owned plot of land. In 1998, the plot was occupied by a private company which started constructing buildings. By decision of 31/05/2001 the Economic Court, acting as an appeal court, ordered the restoration of the applicant’s right of use of the plot and the demolition of the buildings. No cassation appeal was lodged against this judgment, the decision is final. 

It transpires from the European Court’s judgment that the plot at issue, which was state property at the time the applicant was given the right to use it, has been owned by a private person since 1999. The Court stated that in finding a violation of Article 6§1 in the present case, it has established the government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation, i.e. to ensure compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 31/05/2001. Whether such measures would involve restoring the applicant's right of use of the plot in question or providing him with an equivalent plot or, if this proves impossible, granting him reasonable compensation for non-enforcement, or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent state. The Court, however, emphasised that any measures adopted must be compatible with the conclusions set out in its judgment.

• On 25/05/2010, the Secretariat wrote to the Azerbaijani authorities recalling the deadline set by the Court for the individual measure in this case and the need for an action plan.

On 29/07/2010, the applicant wrote to the Secretariat to complain that the authorities had offered him a plot of land of unknown dimension in a district which did not represent the same advantages and value as the plot at stake in this case and which he had therefore refused. He further complains that no new plot of land was offered to him to redress the violation found in this case.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 7/09/2010): The Baku executive authorities (BEA) proposed an alternative plot of land to the applicant which he refused. The BEA filed a request to the Baku Court of Appeal under Article 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking it to change the method of execution of the judgment of the Economic Court of 31/05/2001.

The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Azerbaijani and sent out to judges and officers of the Ministry of Justice, especially those who are responsible for the enforcement of domestic courts’ judgments. It was also published in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights (11/2009).

- 2 cases concerning failure to execute final judicial decisions ordering the eviction of unlawful occupants from flats of which the applicants were the lawful tenants

50187/06           Mirzayev, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010, rectified on 13/01/2010

17276/07           Jafarov, judgment of 11/02/2010, final on 11/05/2010

These cases concerns the failure to enforce final judgments (of 23/12/2003 in the case of Mirzayev, of 21/07/2003 in the case of Jafarov) ordering the eviction of unlawful occupants, who are internally displaced persons (IDPs), from a flat of which the applicants were lawful tenants (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court reiterated that the state's responsibility for enforcing a judgment against a private party extends no further than the involvement of state bodies in the enforcement procedures. When the authorities are obliged to act to enforce a judgment and fail to do so, their inactivity may engage the state's responsibility under Article 6§1 of the Convention. The Court further observed that unlike ordinary cases concerning non-enforcement of a judgment between private parties, where the state has, for example, merely to assist a creditor with the execution of a judgment, in this case the execution of the judgment was conditioned by the state's obligation to provide the IDPs with other accommodation. However, it has not been shown that the authorities had continually and diligently attempted to find other accommodation for them so as to enforce the judgment in question.

Individual measures:

1) Mirzayev case: The European Court held that within three months from the date on which the judgment became final according to Article 44§2 of the Convention (i.e. by 3/06/2010),the respondent state should secure by appropriate means the enforcement of the domestic court's judgment of 23/12/2003.

On 25/05/2010, the Secretariat wrote to the Azerbaijani authorities reminding them of the deadline set by the Court for the individual measure in this case and the need for an action plan.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 24/08/2010): The judgment of the Surakhany District Court of 23/12/2003 was executed on 13/05/2010 and the applicant’s apartment was returned to him. Accordingly the enforcement procedure with respect to this case was dismissed by decision of the Surakhany District Court of 11/06/2010.

2) Jafarov case: The European Court held that within three months from the date on which the judgment became final according to Article 44§2 of the Convention (i.e. by 11/08/2010), the respondent state should by appropriate means secure enforcement of the domestic court's judgment of 21/07/2003.

No information has been received concerning this case.

General measures:

• Further information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 24/08/2010): The judgment of the European Court in the Mirzayev case has been translated into Azerbaijani and sent out to judges and officers of the Ministry of Justice, especially those who are responsible for the enforcement of domestic courts’ judgments. It was also published in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights, 11/2009.

- 2 cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic judgments[13]

33343/03           Tarverdiyev, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

31556/03          Efendiyeva, judgment of 25/10/2007, final on 25/01/2008 and of 11/12/2008, final on 11/03/2009

21674/05           Rahimova, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008[14]

- 42 cases against Belgium / 42 affaires contre la Belgique

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).

• Un courrier a été envoyé aux autorités le 02/11/2010.

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.

13178/03           Mubilanzila Mayeka et Kaniki Mitunga, arrêt du 12/10/2006, définitif le 12/01/2007

L'affaire a trait au refus des autorités belges d'autoriser une enfant congolaise (la deuxième requérante), alors âgée de cinq ans, à accéder au territoire belge. Arrivée en août 2002 à l'aéroport de Bruxelles-National sans être en possession des documents de voyage et de séjour nécessaires, elle devait à terme rejoindre sa mère (la première requérante), réfugiée au Canada - puis résidente permanente depuis 2003. La demande d'asile de l'enfant fut déclarée irrecevable par l'Office des étrangers qui prit une décision de refus d'entrée avec refoulement ; elle fut détenue pendant près de deux mois dans un centre fermé pour adultes puis refoulée vers son pays d'origine.

La Cour européenne a estimé que les deux requérantes avaient subi un traitement inhumain, premièrement du fait de la détention (dans un centre fermé pour adultes) de l'enfant dont la Cour européenne a souligné qu'elle se trouvait dans une situation d'extrême vulnérabilité et, deuxièmement, du fait du refoulement de l'enfant, manquant de préparation et n'ayant pas été entouré de mesures d'encadrement et de garanties (violations de l'article 3).

La Cour a en outre estimé que les deux requérantes avaient subi une atteinte à leur droit au respect de leur vie familiale, également du fait de la détention et du refoulement de l'enfant, ces mesures n'ayant pas tendu à une nécessaire réunification familiale, mais l'ont au contraire contrariées (violations de l'article 8).

De surcroît, la Cour a estimé, en particulier au vu des conditions de détention de l'enfant, que le système juridique belge en vigueur à l'époque des faits et tel qu'il a été appliqué dans la présente affaire n'avait pas garanti de manière suffisante son droit à la liberté (violation de l'article 5§1).

Enfin, la Cour a conclu que l'enfant n'avait pas disposé d'un recours effectif, vu qu'elle avait été refoulée sans qu'il soit tenu compte du recours déposé par l'intermédiaire de son avocat, sollicitant une annulation de la décision de refoulement (violation de l'article 5§4).

Fin octobre 2002, la deuxième requérante rejoignit sa mère au Canada après intervention du Premier ministre belge et de son homologue canadien.

Mesures de caractère individuel :La deuxième requérante n'est plus détenue et les deux requérantes résident maintenant régulièrement au Canada. En outre, la Cour européenne a alloué une satisfaction équitable aux requérantes pour préjudice moral.

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure ne semble donc nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : Les constats de la Cour ont trait à la détention et au refoulement d’un enfant « mineur étranger non accompagné » (MENA), « statut (…) caractérisé à l’époque par une situation de vide juridique » (§82 de l’arrêt ; voir aussi §56).

1) Détention (violations des articles 3, 5§1 et 8) : Critiquant cette détention, la Cour européenne a souligné en particulier que l'intéressée se trouvait dans une situation d'extrême vulnérabilité du fait de son très jeune âge et du fait qu'elle était étrangère en situation d'illégalité dans un pays inconnu, non accompagnée car séparée de sa famille et donc livrée à elle-même.

• Mesures prises par les autorités : La prise en charge des MENA a substantiellement évolué depuis l’époque des faits litigieux. Ils sont accompagnés par un tuteur et ne peuvent plus être détenus en centre fermé.

- Un système de représentation légale des MENA a été mis en place depuis le 01/05/2004. Chaque MENA se voit depuis lors attribuer un tuteur. Celui-ci a pour mission de représenter le MENA dans tous les actes juridiques et dans toutes les procédures (par exemple : introduire une demande d'asile ou d'autorisation de séjour, exercer les voies de recours, demander l'assistance d'un avocat, rechercher les membres de la famille du MENA etc.) et de prendre soin du MENA durant tout son séjour en Belgique (entre autres : assurer un suivi médical, psychologique et scolaire du MENA, rechercher des solutions durables conformes à son intérêt, expliquer au MENA les décisions prises le concernant, gérer ses biens etc.). Le tuteur établit un rapport sur la situation personnelle du MENA dans les 15 jours de sa désignation. Un pool spécifique de tuteurs a été mis en place pour assurer la représentation juridique des MENA dès leur interception à la frontière belge.

Un « service des tutelles » coordonne et surveille l’organisation matérielle du travail des tuteurs ; il peut être contacté à tout moment au moyen d’une permanence. Entre autres, il désigne les tuteurs, identifie les MENA, en cas de contestation quant à leur âge il fait vérifier celui-ci au moyen d’un test médical, il coordonne les contacts avec les autorités belges concernées (asile, accès au territoire, séjour, hébergement etc.) ainsi qu’avec les autorités des pays d’origine des MENA (notamment afin de rechercher leur famille ou toute autre structure d’accueil), etc.

- L’accueil des MENA a également été revu, en particulier par la loi du 12/01/2007 sur les demandeurs d’asile (entrée en vigueur le 07/05/2007) et l’Arrêté royal du 09/04/2007. La loi a prévu la création de « centres d'observation et d'orientation » (« COO »). Le séjour en COO doit permettre l'observation du MENA, dans le but de dresser son premier profil médical, psychologique et social et de dépister une éventuelle situation de vulnérabilité en vue de son orientation vers une prise en charge adéquate.

Les MENA y sont accueillis à égalité de traitement quelle que soit la situation administrative dans laquelle ils se trouvent (demande d'asile ou pas).

S’agissant en particulier des MENA arrivant à la frontière sans document de séjour (comme dans cette affaire), la loi met définitivement fin à leur enfermement dans les centres fermés. Le MENA – dont la minorité n’est pas contestée – est accueilli dans un délai de 24 heures maximum dans un COO et le service des Tutelles procède à la désignation immédiate d’un tuteur définitif. Si la minorité de l’intéressé(e) est contestée, il / elle est maintenue dans un centre fermé pour la durée strictement nécessaire à l’organisation d’un test médical de détermination de l’âge, lequel doit être effectué dans les trois jours ouvrables de son arrivée à la frontière, ce délai pouvant exceptionnellement être prolongé de trois jours ouvrables si cet examen n’a pu avoir lieu en raison de circonstances imprévues. Le service des tutelles se charge de l’examen et désigne un tuteur provisoire. Au terme de l’identification, s’ils sont déclarés mineurs, les MENA sont transférés dans les 24 heures (suivant la notification de cette décision) dans un COO. Pendant le délai strictement nécessaire à la détermination de son âge, le présumé MENA peut suivre des cours et participer aux activités récréatives, culturelles et sportives, organisées dans le centre fermé.

Si aucune décision de refoulement n’a été exécutée dans un délai de 15 jours (pouvant être prolongé de 5 jours en cas de circonstances exceptionnelles dûment motivées), le MENA est autorisé à entrer sur le territoire belge.

Il peut enfin être noté que, concernant l’accueil des MENA se trouvant sur le territoire, après le séjour en COO, une deuxième phase prend place. Sur la base du premier profil psychologique et social du MENA, ce dernier est envoyé vers un centre « adapté à ses besoins spécifiques » et est chargé avec son tuteur d'établir un projet de vie, une « solution durable ».

Les deux centres d’observation et d’orientation existant ont chacun une capacité d’accueil de 50 personnes, soit un total de 100 MENA. Selon les informations transmises par les autorités, actuellement leur capacité est suffisante.

• Des informations complémentaires sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour assurer une protection efficace des enfants se trouvant dans des situations similaires.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours.

2) Refoulement (violations des articles 3, 5§4 et 8) : Le refoulement a été incriminé par la Cour européenne notamment sur la base des éléments suivants. Elle a tout d'abord observé que le refoulement avait été programmé le lendemain de l'introduction par l'avocat de l'enfant d'un recours de remise en liberté auprès du tribunal compétent (chambre du conseil), soit avant même que cette juridiction ne statue. Elle a également retenu le fait que le refoulement avait été mis en œuvre à la date préprogrammée, alors même que le tribunal avait (la veille) ordonné la libération immédiate de l'enfant au motif que sa détention était illégale, que le délai suspensif de 24 heures dont disposait le procureur du Roi pour faire appel n'était pas écoulé, et enfin que le Haut Commissariat aux Réfugiés (H.C.R.) avait informé les autorités de la qualité de réfugiée de la mère, au Canada. La Cour a également critiqué la façon dont il avait été procédé au refoulement, l'enfant ayant voyagé seule, sa prise en charge au Congo n'ayant pas été assurée de façon satisfaisante et sa mère n'en ayant été avisée qu'a posteriori. Enfin, l'Etat belge n'avait pas respecté les obligations positives auxquelles il était tenu, au rang desquelles se trouvaient celles de prendre la seconde requérante en charge et de faciliter la réunification familiale des requérantes.

• Mesures adoptées par les autorités : La loi précitée du 12/01/2007 dispose désormais que le refoulement du MENA vers son pays d'origine ne peut être effectué que dans son intérêt supérieur (article 37 de la loi et article 4 de l'arrêté royal du 09/04/2007) et dans le but de rejoindre sa famille qui pourra l'accueillir et le prendre en charge de manière adéquate. Par ailleurs, aucun refoulement ne peut être effectué, si le tuteur du MENA n'a pas été associé effectivement à la recherche d'une solution durable conformément à son intérêt supérieur (sur le tuteur, voir ci-dessus). Le cas échéant, il appartient au tuteur d'introduire les recours nécessaires afin de contester l'ordre de reconduite et de demander la délivrance d'un titre de séjour.

Concernant les mesures prises pour que les autorités compétentes aient connaissance des exigences de la Convention, il peut être noté que l'arrêt de la Cour européenne a été publié dans les trois langues officielles sur le site Internet du Service Public Fédéral de la Justice ; l'affaire a par ailleurs été fortement médiatisée et a connu une forte diffusion et discussion au sein des milieux académiques et professionnels concernés (notamment, plusieurs articles de doctrine ont été rédigés à son propos). L'arrêt a également été largement diffusé auprès des autorités concernées, en particulier : l'Office des étrangers - Service Public Fédéral Intérieur ; le Collège des Procureurs généraux, aux fins de diffusion à tous les arrondissements judiciaires de Belgique, plusieurs cours d'appel ayant au demeurant confirmé cette diffusion. L’arrêt a été diffusé à toutes les ambassades bilatérales de la Belgique.

• Des informations complémentaires sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour assurer une protection efficace des enfants se trouvant dans des situations similaires.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours.

41442/07           Muskhadzhiyeva, arrêt du 19/01/2010, définitif le 19/04/2010

L’affaire a trait à la détention de quatre enfants (sept ans, cinq ans, trois ans et demi et sept mois à l’époque des faits), accompagnés de leur mère, ressortissants russes d’origine tchétchène, du 22/12/2006 au 24/01/2007, au Centre fermé « 127 bis », lieu de détention géré par l’Office des Etrangers, situé près de l’aéroport de Bruxelles et destiné à la détention d’étrangers (adultes isolés ou familles) dans l’attente de leur éloignement.

La Cour européenne a estimé que, compte tenu du bas âge des enfants requérants, de la durée de leur détention et de leur état de santé, diagnostiqué par des certificats médicaux pendant leur enfermement, les conditions de vie des enfants requérants au centre 127 « bis » avaient atteint le seuil de gravité exigé par l'article 3 de la Convention (violation de l’article 3).

La Cour européenne a en outre constaté que dans la mesure où les quatre enfants ont été détenus dans un centre fermé conçu pour les adultes et inadapté à leur extrême vulnérabilité, et même s’ils étaient accompagnés par leur mère, l’article 5§1 a été violé à leur égard. Dans ces conditions, la Cour a rappelé que le système juridique belge en vigueur à l'époque et tel qu'il a été appliqué dans la présente affaire n'a pas garanti de manière suffisante le droit des enfants requérants à leur liberté (violation de l’article 5§1).

Les requérants ont été rapatriés en Pologne le 21/01/2007 et résident dans un camp de réfugiés à Debak-Podkowa Lesna.

Cette affaire est à rapprocher de l’affaire Mubilanzila Mayeka et Kaniki Mitunga (13178/03), arrêt du 12/10/2006, définitif le 12/01/2007, (rubrique 4.2), qui concerne la détention d’une jeune enfant (mineur étranger non accompagné) dans un centre de transit inadapté à son jeune âge et le refoulement dans son pays d’origine.

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.

42914/98           Capeau, arrêt du 13/01/2005, définitif le 06/06/2005

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit à la présomption d'innocence (violation de l'article 6§2). En 1994, le requérant avait été placé en détention provisoire pendant presque un mois dans le cadre d'une enquête relative à un incendie criminel. Suite au constat de non-lieu mettant un terme à la procédure, il a introduit une demande en réparation pour le préjudice subi du fait de sa détention provisoire. Cette demande a été rejetée par le ministre de Justice, rejet confirmé le 01/12/1997 par décision définitive de la commission d'appel, au motif que le requérant n'avait pas apporté la preuve de son innocence, comme l'exige la loi du 13/03/1973.

La Cour européenne a conclu que cette exigence, quoique fondée sur une disposition légale, laissait planer un doute sur l'innocence du requérant. Elle a estimé que le fait de renverser la charge de la preuve dans le cadre d'une procédure en indemnisation introduite suite à une décision de non-lieu était incompatible avec la présomption d'innocence.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Par lettre du 07/02/2006, les autorités belges ont indiqué que la décision de la commission d'appel était passée en force de chose jugée et qu'un nouvel examen de la même demande par la commission était exclu. Le requérant n'a pas introduit de demande de satisfaction équitable devant la Cour européenne et il n'a soumis aucune demande au Comité des Ministres

• Evaluation : Dans ces circonstances, aucune mesure individuelle spécifique ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : Le raisonnement de la commission d'appel critiqué par la Cour européenne découle de l'article 28§1b de la loi de 1973 exigeant du requérant qu'il « justifie d'éléments de fait ou de droit démontrant son innocence. 

Depuis l'arrêt de la Cour européenne, les instances concernées par la procédure en indemnisation au titre des détentions provisoires (à savoir, le Service Public Fédéral (SPF) Justice en première instance et la Commission d’appel, saisie des recours) n'examinent plus le fait de devoir « justifier d'éléments de fait ou de droit démontrant son innocence » en cas de non-lieu. A cet égard, les autorités ont fourni à titre d'exemple des copies de deux décisions de la commission d'appel datant de mars et mai 2005. Dans ces décisions, la commission a écarté l'examen de la question de savoir si les requérants « justifiaient d'éléments de fait ou de droit démontrant leur innocence », en se référant à l'article 6§2 de la Convention. Elle a estimé qu'en cas de conflit entre la règle d'un traité qui a un effet direct dans l'ordre juridique belge et une règle de droit interne moins favorable, la règle du traité devait prévaloir. Cette pratique est toujours suivie à ce jour, tant par le SPF Justice que par la Commission d’appel.

Par ailleurs, un projet de loi portant abrogation de la condition légale jugée incompatible avec la Convention est à l’étude.

• Des informations complémentaires sont attendues concernant ce projet de loi.

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 sont attendues 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).

1062/07            Stagno, arrêt du 7/07/2009, définitif le 7/10/2009

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit d’accès à un tribunal en raison du rejet pour motif de prescription de l'action intentée par les requérantes contre leur mère pour avoir dilapidé, alors qu'elles étaient mineures, une partie de l'assurance vie de leur père décédé (violation de l'article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a estimé que l’application rigide par les juridictions belges du délai de prescription, sans tenir compte des circonstances particulières de l’affaire, avait empêché les requérantes de faire usage d’un recours qui leur était en principe disponible. Cette limitation à leur droit d’accès à un tribunal était disproportionnée par rapport au but visant à garantir la sécurité juridique et la bonne administration de la justice.

• Aucune information n’a été fournie par les autorités à ce jour.

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.

32576/96           Wynen, arrêt du 05/11/02, définitif le 05/02/03

Cette affaire concerne l'atteinte au droit des requérants (une personne physique et une association) à un procès équitable devant la Cour de cassation du fait de la déclaration d'irrecevabilité d'un mémoire complémentaire déposé tardivement. La condamnation des requérants en 1995 à une amende avec sursis devint définitive à l'issue de la procédure litigieuse.

Pour parvenir au constat de violation, la Cour européenne a considéré que l'article 420 bis du code d'instruction criminelle qui impose au demandeur au pourvoi de déposer tout mémoire dans un délai de deux mois à compter de l'inscription de la cause au rôle général de la Cour de cassation, alors qu'aucun délai comparable n'est imposé à la partie défenderesse, méconnaissait le principe de l'égalité des armes (violation de l'article 6§1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a estimé que le préjudice matériel ne se trouvait pas établi et que le préjudice moral était suffisamment réparé par le constat de violation. En vertu de la loi du 01/04/2008 sur la réouverture de procédures pénales suite à des arrêts de la Cour européenne, entrée en vigueur le 1/12/2007, le requérant a disposé de la possibilité de demander la réouverture de la procédure litigieuse (voir également l'affaire Göktepe en rubrique 6.1 lors de la 1028e réunion, juin 2008).

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : La délégation de la Belgique a annoncé dès avril 2003 qu'une solution était étudiée par le procureur général près la Cour de cassation. Lors de la 922e réunion (avril 2005), elle a indiqué que la Cour de cassation avait émis une note invitant le législateur à tenir compte de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne et qu'une proposition de loi visant à amender le code de procédure pénale était en discussion. Un projet de loi réformant le code de procédure pénale en vue notamment de rectifier l’article incriminé dans cette affaire a par la suite été préparé, mais n'a pas encore pu être adopté par le Parlement. Cette réforme est pour l'instant suspendue. Il est rappelé que l'arrêt de la Cour européenne avait rapidement été publié sur le site Internet du Ministère de la Justice et communiqué à la Cour de cassation.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises pour parvenir à l'adoption de cette réforme. Des informations semblent également nécessaires sur les mesures intérimaires prises en attendant que la réforme soit adoptée.

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.

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

L'affaire concerne la violation 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.

                        - 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 <http://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.

- 8 cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina / 8 affaires contre la Bosnie-Herzégovine

            - 2 cases concerning the unlawful psychiatric detention without a court decision

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

23968/05           Halilović, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 01/03/2010

These cases concern 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 cases, 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 in Tokić). However, no such decision was ever taken in the present cases (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 (§66 in Tokić, §14 in Halilović).

The European Court also noted that the Constitutional Court had examined similar complaints in a number of psychiatric detainees’ cases (including those of the applicants in the present cases) and considered the present situation to be unlawful in the case of Tokić (§66 in Tokić, §9 in Halilović). 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 in Tokić).

Finally, in the case of Tokić, 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 applicants had been released from Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex (§66 in Tokić, §10 in Halilović).

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. Also, on 19/05/2010 the said court ordered that Mr Halilović should also be held in the Zenica Prison Psychiatric Annexe pending his transfer to the Sokolac Psychiatric Hospital. The Cantonal Court of Zenica upheld this decision on appeal on 17/06/2010.

• Assessment: A domestic court having ordered the compulsory confinement of Mr Marinić and Mr Halilović 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 in Tokić) and criminal courts may no longer issue hospitalisation orders against those who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity (§51 in Tokić). However, in the Halilović case, the European Court noted that, in response to its findings in Tokić, Article 410 of the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Federation”) 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 in Halilović).

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 Federation government adopted an action plan on 08/03/2010. In accordance with the action plan, on 22/06/2010, the Federation authorities identified 124 persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, who were in compulsory confinement in psychiatric facilities on the basis of administrative decisions issued by social care centres. The competent authorities planned to begin the procedure to obtain court decisions on the compulsory confinement of these persons within two further months.

• Information is awaited on the measures taken to obtain court decisions ordering compulsory confinement in psychiatric facilities in respect of persons acquitted by reason of insanity who are unlawfully held in such facilities without court decision.

• 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

                        CM/Inf/DH(2010)22

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 are examined in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat (CM/Inf/DH(2010)22). In April 2010, the European Court communicated two similar cases to the BIH authorities (Šekerović, No. 5920/04 and Pašalić, No. 67396/09).

• Information provided by the BIH authorities since the publication of the Memorandum: In order to eliminate discrimination in the pension legislation, on 02/08/2010 the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Policy submitted to the Federal Government a new version of draft amendments to the Pension and Disability Act. The Federal Government is currently examining these draft amendments.

• Information is thus awaited on further developments in adoption of the legislative amendments aimed at eliminating discrimination from pension legislation.

 

- 4 cases concerning 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

                        CM/Inf/DH(2010)22

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 are examined in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat (CM/Inf/DH(2010)22).

▪ Information provided by the BIH authorities following the publication of the Memorandum: The RS Ministry of Finance has settled 2 judgments ordering release of “old savings”, including a new judgment which was recorded in 2010 only and was not therefore listed in the action plan. There are currently 11 outstanding judgments in RS with an aggregate debt amount of approximately 181 000 BAM. The creditors submitted these judgments to the verification scheme and obtained government bonds in exchange (see the Suljagić case, 27912/02, Section 6.2). The RS authorities are therefore examining how to resolve these cases.

• Assessment: It appears that the RS authorities have taken measures to ensure that outstanding judgments ordering release of “old savings” are promptly enforced and paid. However, it would be necessary to confirm that the issue concerning the outstanding judgments has been resolved.

• Information is thus awaited on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum, including on further developments in respect of the outstanding 11 decisions ordering release of “old savings”.

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.

- 175 cases against Bulgaria / 175 affaires contre la Bulgarie

- 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 case concerns 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.

• 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.

According to information contained in a submission made to the Committee of Ministers under Rule 9 by the NGO European Roma Rights Center, on 22/01/2010 the Varna Regional Court again convicted Mr Georgiev to a year and eight months' imprisonment and to pay damages of 20 000 leva (10 000 EUR) to the civil party. Mr Ganev was again found guilty of acts contrary to public morals and was fined (the Rule 9 communication is available on the Committee of Ministers' website: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1626587&Site=DG4&BackColorInternet=B9BDEE&BackColorIntranet=FFCD4F&BackColorLogged=FFC679).

• Information is awaited on the progress of the proceedings in the 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).

1108/02            Kolevi, judgment of 05/11/2009, final on 05/02/2010

This case concerns the detention in 2001 of the first applicant, Mr Kolev, a high-ranking Bulgarian prosecutor, and the ineffective investigation into his murder in 2002 amid allegations that the then Chief Public Prosecutor and persons close to him might have been implicated in his unlawful dismissal, unlawful detention and murder. Mr Kolev had lodged an application concerning the irregularity of his detention (see below) before his death in December 2002.

With respect to his detention, the European Court considered that the unwarranted delay of five days and eight hours in bringing him before a judge was incompatible with Article 5§3 of the Convention (§162 of the judgment), and noted that a deficiency in the relevant law in that respect had resulted in unacceptable delays (§164) (violation of Article 5§3).

With respect to the lawfulness of Mr Kolev’s detention between 13/09/2001 and 29/11/2001, the European Court observed there was a “gross and obvious irregularity” in the detention order and it was issued in excess of jurisdiction. Any absence of clarity in the law could in itself be seen as a failure by the state to comply with its obligations under Article 5§1 (§178) (violation of Article 5§1).

The European Court observed that Mr Kolev lodged an appeal against his detention on 07/08/2001 but it was examined 36 days later, a period difficult to reconcile with the requirement of a “speedy examination”. The transmission of the appeal to the courts had been delayed by Sofia Investigation Service for almost a month, even though domestic law required appeals to be transmitted “immediately”, and there had been an additional unlawful delay between 5 and 13/09/2001 at the court itself (violation of Article 5§4).

The European Court found the investigation of Mr Kolev’s death, suspended in September 2008, was neither independent, objective nor effective (procedural violation of Article 2). It considered that, having regard to the material available to them, the investigators should have explored the allegation that the then Chief Public Prosecutor and other high-ranking prosecutors and officials might have been implicated in Mr Kolev’s murder (§201). The fact that the investigation had failed to follow one possible line of inquiry, which appeared obviously to be relevant, clearly undermined its effectiveness. The involvement in the investigation of persons against whom the victim and his relatives had made serious complaints based on specific facts was incompatible with the principles of impartiality and independence. The Court noted that the investigation was for all practical purposes under the control of the then Chief Public Prosecutor, and that until 2003 it was legally impossible to investigate any suspected involvement in the matter by the Chief Public Prosecutor and thereafter, as a result of hierarchical structure of the prosecution system and the internal working methods, it was still not possible to do so (§§204-205; §210).

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 14/10/2010. Bilateral contacts are under way in order to collect the additional information necessary for the presentation of an action plan/report to the Committee.

- 15 cases concerning poor detention conditions and / or the lack of an effective investigation in this respect[15]

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

36275/02           Dimitrov Stoyan, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

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

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). 

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 14/10/2010. Bilateral contacts are under way in order to collect the additional information necessary for the presentation of an action plan/report to the Committee.

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.

- 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. 

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on general measures. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière d'informations à fournir sur les mesures générales.

412/03+            Holy synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and others, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 05/06/2009 and of 16/09/2010, possibly final on 16/12/2010

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.

52435/99          Ivanova, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of religion on account of her dismissal in December 1995 from a state school at which her functions did not include teaching (violation of Article 9).

The European Court considered that whilst her employment was ended, in conformity with the law, by modifying the qualifications attached to the post, the dismissal was nonetheless motivated by religious considerations, being just part of a series of events in the context of action against the activities of a religious organisation, “Word of Life”, of which the applicant was an adherent.

Individual measures: Proceedings brought by the applicant to challenge the lawfulness of the dismissal were dismissed by a final decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation in December 1998.

Before the European Court, the applicant stated that she had remained unemployed for more than six months after her dismissal. The European Court awarded her just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage resulting from the loss of earnings during this period as well as non-pecuniary damage sustained.

In addition the applicant had the possibility to request the reopening of the disputed proceedings under Article 231§1 (h) of the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure.

• Assessment: given the circumstances of the case, no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: Freedom of religion in Bulgaria is guaranteed by the Constitution of 1991 (see Articles 13 and 37) and the Religious Denominations Act 1949 (see Sections 1 and 4). The Bulgarian Constitution (Article 38), the Education Act of 1991 (Section 4) and the Labour Code (Article 8§3) provide protection against discrimination grounded on, inter alia, religious beliefs. On 1/01/2004 the Protection against Discrimination Act entered into force, which provides a comprehensive framework for protection against discrimination.

According to Article 328§1(6) of the Labour Code, a contract of employment may be terminated by giving notice in writing to an employee that he or she does not have the necessary education or vocational training for performing the work assigned. The European Court noted the practice of domestic courts in reviewing such terminations according to which it is sufficient for a dismissal to be lawful to establish that there were new qualification requirements for performing the assigned work which the employee no longer met; the courts are not required to assess whether it was necessary to introduce such requirements (§62-63 of the judgment).

• The authorities are invited to provide information on the current practice of domestic courts in similar cases.

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

• Information is awaited on further dissemination to other relevant authorities, in particular to prosecutors, mayors, educational inspectorates throughout the country.

- 3 cases concerning the lack of sufficient guarantees in the framework of a law authorising resort to secret surveillance measures[16]

62540/00           Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, judgment of 28/06/2007, final on 30/01/2008

5182/02            Kirov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008

21480/03           Yordanov Georgi, judgment of 24/09/2009, final on 24/12/2009

9808/02            Stoichkov, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 24/06/2005

The case relates to the imprisonment of the applicant in February 2000, shortly after his return to Bulgaria, in execution of his conviction in absentia in 1989 of rape and attempted rape. Whilst the initial deprivation of the applicant’s liberty might be deemed justified under Article 5§1(a), being for the purpose of enforcing a lawful sentence, it ceased to be so after 19 /07/2001, when the Supreme Court of Cassation refused, in the particular circumstances of the case, to reopen the proceedings (violation of Article 5§1).

The European Court considered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant, coupled with the impossibility of obtaining a new trial in his presence, were manifestly contrary to the principles embodied in Article 6.

The case also relates to the lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention (violation of Article 5§4) and to the absence in domestic law of an enforceable right to compensation in respect of this detention (violation of Article 5§5).

Individual measures: The applicant was released by decision of 17/04/2006. According to this decision, the sentence is considered to have been executed as from 27/07/2005, the date on which its execution was suspended following the judgment of the European Court. The applicant’s unconditional release was also motivated by the impossibility of reopening of his criminal trial due to the destruction of the case file.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 5§1: The European Court noted in its judgment that since 01/01/2000 Bulgarian law has expressly provided for reopening of criminal cases heard in absentia and that the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to reopen the case essentially on the grounds that the case-file of the original proceedings had been destroyed in 1997, a fact which, in its view, rendered a re-hearing impossible in practice. The case-file was destroyed before the time-limit for keeping case-files provided by the law had expired and the applicant received no reply to his request for its restoration. In this context, the publication and the dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the competent authorities appear to be sufficient measures for execution.

            2) Violation of Article 5§4: The Ministry of Justice, following the proposal made by its Directorate for Legislation, requested an opinion of the Supreme Judicial Council on the possibility of introducing into Bulgarian law judicial review of a deprivation of liberty in similar situations.

• Information provided by the Bulgarian authorities (letter of 12/11/2007): The Supreme Judicial Council declined to take a position on this issue as falling outside its competence. Subsequently, the Government Agent proposed to put the question before a working group on legislation to be created in the near future to discuss the setting-up of a permanent Council for Legal Aid. It is envisaged that this Council will comprise representatives of the legislative, judicial and executive powers, and civil society members active in human rights protection. It is expected that this Council will assist the process of execution of judgments of the European Court at national level.

• Additional information is awaited on the follow-up given by the national authorities to the question of introducing into domestic law judicial review of the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty in situations of detention in execution of a sentence after the expiry of the time-limit for the enforcement of the sentence.

            3) Violation of Article 5§5: The case presents similarities to that of Yankov (39084/97, 1108th meeting, March 201).

            4) Publication and dissemination: the judgment of the European Court was published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg and sent out to the competent authorities (the District Court of Pernik, the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office) with an accompanying letter emphasising the conclusions of the European Court.

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).

• On 14/10/2010 the authorities provided and action plan/report, which is currently being assessed.

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 information about 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, Section 4.2).

            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.

- 2 cases concerning the length of pre-trial detention and the right to be brought promptly before a judge after an arrest[17]

44009/02           Ivanov Evgeni, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008

15158/02           Kirilov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008

- 12 cases mainly concerning the length of detention on remand[18]

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

22774/03           Özver, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

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

73481/01           Bochev, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

The case concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, insufficient guarantees of the judicial review of that detention, the lack of an enforceable right to compensation and the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence by the prison administration.

Charged with several offences including murder, the applicant was taken into custody on 09/05/1998. His pre-trial detention lasted until his conviction by the Sofia City Court on 14/10/2005, i.e. more than 7 years and 5 months. During the trial, the applicant made numerous unsuccessful requests for release, two of which remained undecided; the remaining ones were examined by the Sofia City Court either in private or at an oral hearing, while the applicant’s appeals were always examined in private by the Sofia Court of Appeal.  On several occasions, relying on Article 268a of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure, these courts declined to deal with the applicant’s arguments concerning the existence of a reasonable suspicion against him. During the pre-trial detention, the entirety of the applicant’s correspondence, including that with his lawyers, was monitored.

The European Court held that the domestic courts had not properly justified detaining the applicant for more than 7 years and 5 months (violation of Article 5§3). It also considered that the applicant had not benefited from the guarantees enshrined in Article 5§4 as the scope of the judicial review had been too narrow and the proceedings had not been truly adversarial, the applicant having not been heard and having not had the opportunity to reply to the public prosecutor’s comments (violation of Article 5§4). Moreover, Bulgarian law did not provide the applicant with an enforceable right to compensation (violation of Article 5§5). Lastly, the European Court noted that between May 1998 and December 2000 and between June 2002 and April 2006, the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for correspondence had not satisfied the requirements of Article 8§2 (violation of Article 8). 

Individual measures: The applicant is no longer detained pending trial as he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The European Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

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

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 5§3: The European Court noted that in this case, in spite of the legislative reform of 01/01/2000, the Sofia City Court and the Sofia Court of Appeal had continued to rely in their decisions chiefly on the gravity of the charges raised and on the presumption that due to the seriousness of the offences of which he had stood accused, the applicant had automatically presented a risk of absconding and committing other offences. The European Court observed that this approach of the domestic courts was due to their expansive interpretation of the shift of the burden of proof under Article 152§2(3) of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure in its version after 01/01/2000, without invoking any concrete facts and arguments to demonstrate the need for the applicant to remain in custody (see §57 of the judgment).

In respect of this violation, the case presents similarities to that of Evgeni Ivanov (44009/02, Section 4.2) in which the Bulgarian authorities were invited to submit information on measures taken or envisaged in order to prevent other similar violations.

2) Violation of Article 5§4

(a) Besides the considerations quoted above (under Article 5§3), the European Court observed that following the introduction in May 2003 of the new Article 268a§2 in fine of the 1974 Code, presently reproduced in Article 270§2 in fine of the new 2005 Code, trial courts, i.e. those competent to examine requests for release made during trial, were barred from inquiring into the existence or otherwise of a reasonable suspicion against the accused.

The European Court considered that such circumscription of the scope of judicial review of pre-trial detention, based on a misconception of the principle of impartiality, was in breach of the applicant’s right to have all aspects of the lawfulness of his detention examined by a court (see §66 of the judgment).

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged or adopted as well as on the dissemination of the judgment to criminal courts, together with a circular drawing their attention to the requirements concerning the reasoning of the decisions on detention pending trial.

(b) The European Court also noted that the guarantees of adversarial procedure, including a hearing of the detainee and equality of arms, applied both before the first-instance court and the appeal court examining a request for release. However, several applicant’s requests for release were examined only in private by the Sofia City Court and the Sofia Court of Appeal. Furthermore, on at least two occasions the applicant did not have the opportunity to reply to the public prosecutor’s comments (see §§ 67-69 of the judgment).

The European Court observed (see §§ 34-35 of the judgment) that, following the adoption of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in 2005, Article 304§§1 and 2 of the 1974 Code was superseded by Article 270§2 of the 2005 Code, according to which detainees’ requests for release made during trial must be examined by the trial court at an oral hearing. Pursuant to Article 354§1 of the 2005 Code, reproducing Article 348§1 of the 1974 Code, the higher court may then examine the appeal in private or, if it considers it necessary, at an oral hearing.

• Information is requested on measures envisaged or adopted as well as on the dissemination of the judgment to criminal courts, together with a circular drawing their attention to the guarantees of adversarial procedure under Article 5§4 of the Convention.

(c) The European Court also found a violation of Article 5§4 due to the failure by the Sofia City Court to rule on two of the applicant’s requests for release (see §70 of the judgment).

• Information is awaited on the dissemination of the judgment, mainly to the Sofia City Court.

3) Violation of Article 5§5 (lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention): This aspect of the case presents similarities to the Yankov group of cases (39084/97, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

4) Violation of Article 8: As regards the period before April 1999, the European Court noted that the government had failed to explain what had been the legitimate aim of systematically intercepting all of pre‑trial detainees’ non-legal correspondence. Moreover, the inspection of all the applicant’s mail between April 1999 and December 2000 and between June 2002 and April 2006 was based on section 25(1) of Regulation No.2 of 1999 and section 132d(3) of the 1969 Execution of Punishments Act, both of which were set aside by the Bulgarian courts as being contrary to the 1991 Constitution (see §96 of the judgment). However, the European Court did not find any basis to assume that such interference existed following the adoption in September 2006 of the new section 178 of the Regulations for application of the 1969 Execution of Punishments Act. Under this new section, pre-trial detainees are entitled to unlimited correspondence which is not subject to monitoring; envelopes have to be sealed and opened in the presence of members of staff, in a manner allowing those members to make sure that they do not contain money or other prohibited items (see §§ 49 and 94 in fine of the judgment).

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

30122/03           Simeonov, judgment of 28/01/2010, final on 28/04/2010

The case concerns unlawful interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private and family life in that, while in pre-trial detention from 2003 to 2006, he was prohibited from seeing his wife, a co-accused, on the basis of an order made by a reporting judge of a district court (violation of Article 8).

Between 2003 and 2006 the applicant unsuccessfully sought to have the prohibition lifted on several occasions. In a decision of 31/03/2006, a reporting judge of a regional tribunal lifted the prohibition on the grounds that it was contrary to the relevant domestic legislation.

- 5 cases mainly concerning the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence[19]

15197/02           Petrov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008

19257/03           Koriyski, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

36801/03           Mondeshki, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

15035/03           Popov Konstantin, judgment of 25/06/2009, final on 25/09/2009

33726/03           Tsonev Tsonyo, judgment of 01/10/2009, final on 01/01/2010

2376/03            Tsonev Tsonyo No. 2, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant due to the refusal of the Supreme Court of Cassation to grant him free legal assistance for a hearing before it in 2002, even though the applicant lacked sufficient means to pay for legal assistance and the interests of justice required that he should receive such assistance (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3(c)).

Issues concerning the appointment of counsel have been raised in the framework of the Raykov case (35185/03) (Section 4.2).

The case also concerns the fact the applicant had been twice convicted, separately in administrative and criminal proceedings, for the same conduct, the same facts and the same offence (violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7). The European Court noted that it was not open to courts to close the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his earlier punishment in administrative proceedings, as the constant case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation is that the prohibition on repetition of proceedings does not apply to administrative proceedings (§55).

It should be noted that in 2001, in the criminal proceedings, the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

20494/04           Penev, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that in a judgment delivered on 10/12/2003 determining appeal proceedings brought by the applicant against a conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court of Cassation adopted a new legal characterisation of the facts of the case. It also found the applicant guilty of a new offence which carried a less severe punishment, sentenced him to a one-year suspended sentence and confirmed the lower courts’ judgments in part in allowing the claim of the civil party.

The European Court found that the two offences in question were different, that the elements of the new offence had not been debated throughout the applicant’s trial or at any time considered during the investigation, that the applicant had not been aware that the Supreme Court of Cassation might have returned an alternative verdict, and that it was only through the final judgment that he became aware of the new legal characterisation of the facts. The Court concluded that the applicant had not been informed in detail of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him, that he had not been afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, and that he had not received a fair trial. The absence of a clear requirement in the applicable law to allow the accused to defend himself against the modified charges had been undoubtedly decisive in that aspect (violation of Article 6§3(a) and (b), together with Article 6§1).

The European Court noted in particular that Article 285§3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 only required the adjournment of the proceedings in cases of substantial modification of the factual basis of the charges, or of new charges carrying a more severe punishment.

333/04              Aliykov, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial due to the unjustified refusal in 2003 by the Supreme Court of Cassation to reopen the criminal proceedings which had resulted in his conviction in absentia in 2002 (violation of Article 6§1).  The European Court noted that there was no evidence that the domestic authorities had fulfilled their obligation to attempt to inform the applicant of the proceedings in question (although the applicant was aware of an initial set of proceedings) and in the circumstances there was nothing to authorise the conclusion that the applicant had unequivocally waived his right to appear with respect to the proceedings in question. The applicant did not attempt to hide his address from the authorities. The European Court held that the applicant should have had the possibility of obtaining a re-trial at which he could be present.

The applicant, who was arrested in November 2002, served his sentence and was released in 2003. The European Court considered that where, such as in this case, an individual is convicted despite a violation of his right to participate in the proceedings, a retrial or the reopening of proceedings represent in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation found of Article 6 (§72).

• Preliminary information has been provided by the authorities on 14/10/2010. Bilateral contacts are under way in order to collect the additional information necessary for the presentation of an action plan/report to the Committee.

35185/03           Raykov, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

This case concerns the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that he did not have free legal assistance in criminal proceedings against him even though he requested the assistance of an officially appointed lawyer in 2001.

The European Court found that the domestic courts did not properly examine the applicant’s request. Article 6§3c) sets out that the exercise of the right to free legal assistance depends on two conditions: the lack of means and the interests of justice.  The European Court noted that the government did not deny that the applicant did not have the means to appoint his own lawyer. It found that given the severity of the punishment faced by the applicant (three to fifteen years’ imprisonment), the complexity of the applicable law (including the provisions governing recidivism and the difficulty in establishing of the facts), and the fact that the applicant did not have a high level of education, the interests of justice demanded that, in order to receive a fair trial, the applicant should have benefited from free legal assistance in criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3c)). 

The European Court noted that the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in 2001. He has been released.

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 14/10/2010. Bilateral contacts are under way in order to collect the additional information necessary for the presentation of an action plan/report to the Committee.

75022/01           Popov Petyo, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 22/04/2009

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, in that he was not informed of the date of the hearing before the Supreme Court of Cassation in 2000 (violation of Article 6§1).

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 14/10/2010. Bilateral contacts are under way in order to collect the additional information necessary for the presentation of an action plan/report to the Committee.

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.

50899/99          Yordanov Krasimir, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007

The case concerns the fact that correspondence and other items seized during a criminal investigation could not be returned to the applicant once proceedings against him had been closed, because they had disappeared from the file (violation of Article 8). The European Court noted that the disappearance of seized items from the case file cannot be considered as “provided by law”.

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy to obtain compensation for this loss (violation of Article 8 and Article 13 taken together). The Court noted in this respect that although the applicant had legal means to request the return of the seized items, he had no possibility of obtaining compensation for their loss.

Finally, the case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Articles 6§1 and 13). The proceedings in question began in February 1991 and ended in November 1998 (more than 6 years and 2 months within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis).

Individual measures: The proceedings are closed. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant did not request just satisfaction for pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: no further measures appear necessary.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Art. 8: It seems that this was an isolated violation resulting from the negligence of public prosecutor’s office.

            2) Violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 8: When criminal proceedings are closed through the dropping of charges the prosecutor decides on the disposal of material evidence. Since 1/01/2000 any refusal by the investigating or prosecuting authorities to return seized items is subject to judicial recourse. The European Court noted however that Bulgarian law provided no compensation in case of loss of items seized during a criminal investigation.

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

            3) Violation of Article 6 and Article 13: This case presents similarity to the Kitov group of cases (37104/97, Section 4.2).

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

66455/01          Bulinwar OOD and Hrusanov, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

This case concerns the infringement of the applicant company’s right of access to a court to challenge the refusal by a commission to authorise the use of its new building (violation of Article 6§1). The applicants obtained a decision in their favour in June 1999 before the Sofia City Court but this judgment was subsequently quashed by the Supreme Administrative Court which found that that it was not competent to examine an administrative decision on the merits.

Individual measures: The European Court held that the finding of the violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction with regard to the non-pecuniary damage. Furthermore, Article 239-6 of the Code of Administrative Procedure allows the reopening of administrative proceedings if the European Court has found a violation of the Convention or its Protocols.

• Assessment: No further measure appears necessary.

General measures: At the material time the procedure to obtain authorisation to use new buildings was regulated by Ministerial Decree No. 6 of 15/03/1993 which was subsequently abrogated in July 2003 following the entry into force of a new law on territorial planning.

• Information provided by the Bulgarian authorities (March 2008): The Ministry of Justice is currently collecting information concerning the practice of the Supreme Administrative Court in such cases.  

• Information is still awaited on the current practice of the Supreme Administrative Court 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 among relevant courts and authorities are expected, to raise their awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

17868/07           Mihaylov Kostadin, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 27/06/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to access to court, in that he was totally unable to have the merits of his invalidity pension claim determined by a court, due to contradictory positions taken by domestic courts in two sets of proceedings he initiated in 2005 and 2006 (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the national courts which examined this case had diverging positions as to which institution was the proper defendant in the case and, as a result, dismissed the applicant’s action several times. At the end, all the courts involved agreed on the proper defendant, which was the institution against which the applicant had directed his action in the first place. However, the Court of Appeal, supported by the Supreme Court of Cassation, while expressly admitting in their final judgment that the situation was “unfair” and amounted to an “evident injustice”, considered it was impossible to change their own earlier decision on this question given that they had already pronounced on the matter. The European Court concluded that the domestic courts’ ruling impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right, as it does not appear that he could resort to any other avenue of redress.

Individual measures: In the Court’s view, the most appropriate means of redress in cases where it finds that an applicant has not had access to a tribunal in breach of Article 6§1 of the Convention would, as a rule, be to reopen the proceedings in due course and re-examine the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair trial. The applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings on 04/08/2008. By a decision of 19/11/2008, the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed his request on the ground that the 2007 Code of civil procedure did not provide reopening following a judgment of the European Court (see general measures).

• The Bulgarian authorities are invited to provide information on the measures they envisage to adopt to remedy the situation of the applicant.

General measures: Between 01/03/2008 and 05/06/2009, the 2007 Code of Civil Procedure did not provide reopening of civil proceedings following a judgment of the European Court. Since the latter date, the 2007 Code (Article 303 § 7) provides such reopening if it is necessary to erase the consequences of the violation of the Convention or its Protocols.

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged or already taken to prevent new, similar violations. In any event, the publication of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to relevant authorities, particularly to courts, are appropriate measures for the execution of this judgment.

                       - 3 cases concerning the lack of access to a court in that compensation claims submitted in criminal proceedings could not be examined because the alleged criminal offence was time-barred[20]

72001/01           Atanasova, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 02/01/2009

23057/03           Dinchev, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 22/04/2009

18527/02           Tonchev, judgment of 19/11/2009, final on 19/02/2010

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

The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings resulting in the compulsory liquidation of the applicant bank in 2005 (violations of Article 6§1). The domestic courts dealing with the case considered themselves to be bound by the National Bank's finding of insolvency, without examining it on its merits. Furthermore, being represented by persons (the special administrators and later the liquidators) dependent on the other party to the proceedings (the National Bank), the applicant bank was unable to properly defend its position and protect its interests.

Finally, the fact that the applicant bank had, under the applicable law, been given no opportunity to challenge the withdrawal of its licence also infringed its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The applicant bank has not existed since April 2005. Its entire undertaking was purchased by another bank which contracted to pay certain amounts to the creditors.

Following the judgment of the European Court, three companies, which are shareholders in the Capital Bank (and who represented it before the European Court) initiated several sets of proceedings aimed at quashing the decisions resulting in its liquidation.

They informed the Committee of Ministers of their concerns as regards the refusal of the Supreme Administrative Court and the prosecution authorities to quash these decisions:

- the Supreme Administrative Court refused to quash the decision of the National Bank withdrawing the applicant bank's licence (the decision which triggers liquidation proceedings), on the gound that the claimant, a shareholder, was not directly concerned by this decision and that it had already decided the issue in 2002 (Decisions Nos. 8088/17.07.2006 and 11643/23.11.2006). Furthermore, the Supreme Administrative Court declared inadmissible the shareholders' complaint against the tacit refusal of the National Bank itself to reconsider the withdrawal of the applicant bank's licence, since this decision had been subject to judicial control in 2002 (according to domestic law, tacit refusal by the administration to annul its own decisions may only be appealed before administrative courts if the decision concerned had not been appealed before a court – Decision No. 659/22.01.2007).  

- the Prosecutor General's office refused to request the reopening of the liquidation proceedings, noting that at the time of these proceedings, one of the courts dealing with the case examined the substance of the issue of the applicant bank's insolvency (see §31 of the judgment of the European Court), and that the bank's entire undertaking was purchased by a third party of good faith (decisions of 07/04/2006, 30/05/2006 and 14/07/2006). It should be noted in this respect that Article 231§1, letter “z” of the Code of Civil Procedure provides such a possibility in principle.

- the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the request for reopening of the liquidation proceedings (decision of 12/04/2007).

The applicants submitted detailed information to complain about the current situation.

• The Secretariat is currently examining the information submitted in order to evaluate the need for further measures. 

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (lack of independent review of the withdrawal of the applicant bank's licence): A new law on credit institutions was adopted in July 2006. Unlike the law applicable at the material time (Article 21§5 of the Banks Act), which explicitly excluded from the scope of judicial review a decision of the National Bank revoking a bank's licence on the ground of insolvency, the new legislation provides the possibility of appealing such decisions before the Supreme Administrative Court. The law on credit institutions entered into force on 01/01/2007.

• Assessment: in these circumstances, it appears that no further measure is necessary concerning this issue.

            2) Violation of Article 6§1 (lack of independent representation of the applicant bank during the liquidation proceedings):Following a modification of the Bank Insolvency Act introduced in July 2006, shareholders owning more that 5% of the shares of a bank are entitled to participate in proceedings concerning its liquidation. However, the provision (Article 16§1 of the Bank Insolvency Act) according to which only the special administrators appointed by the National Bank, the prosecutor and the representatives of the National Bank are allowed to appeal against the competent court's decision to initiate liquidation proceedings, remains unchanged.

• Information is awaited on the measures envisaged by the authorities in this respect.

            3) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice http://www.mjeli.government.bg.

• Confirmation is awaited of its dissemination to the National Bank and the competent courts.

68334/01           Agromodel OOD et Mironov, arrêt du 24/09/2009, définitif le 24/12/2009

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit d’accès de la société requérante à un tribunal, dans le cadre des procédures en indemnisation qu’elle avait intentées contre l’Etat entre 1997 et 2005, dans la mesure où les juridictions internes ont refusé d’examiner ces procédures au motif que la requérante n’avait pas versé la taxe judiciaire (violation de l’article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a noté particulièrement que le manque de flexibilité du système des taxes judiciaires (qui a eu pour résultat le montant particulièrement élevé de la taxe judiciaire dans cette affaire) et l’impossibilité légale pour les personnes morales ne disposant pas de moyen suffisant comme la requérante (contrairement aux personnes physiques), de demander l’exonération du paiement des taxes judiciaires, ont eu pour résultat de barrer de manière automatique l’accès de la requérante à un tribunal. La Cour européenne a considéré qu’une interdiction générale d’accorder l’exonération du paiement des taxes judiciaires posait en soi un problème sous l’angle de l’article 6§1.  

• Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 14/10/2010. 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.

33738/02           Nenov, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

Cette affaire concerne l'atteinte au droit du requérant à un procès équitable du fait qu'il n'a pas bénéficié de l'aide judiciaire dans une procédure engagée en 2002 par son ex-épouse et visant la modification de son droit de visite à l'égard de leurs enfants, nés en 1989 et 1992 (violation de l'article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a considéré que l'importance particulière de l'enjeu pour l'intéressé - la possibilité de garder un lien réel avec ses enfants - combinée à son état de santé et à la nature même de son mal - une maladie psychique - imposait l'octroi d'une aide judiciaire. En l'absence de celle-ci, l'intéressé a éprouvé des difficultés particulièrement importantes qui l'ont empêché à la fois de jouer dans le processus décisionnel un rôle suffisant pour lui assurer la protection requise de ses intérêts et ont compromis l'équité de la procédure dans son ensemble. La Cour a relevé à cet égard que son ex-épouse avait bénéficié de l'assistance d'un avocat dans cette procédure.

• Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 14/10/2010. 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.

23530/02           Iordanov Iordan and others, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

This case concerns a breach of the principle of legal certainty in judicial proceedings brought by the applicants to challenge their dismissal from employment on account of “deep and persistent divergences” in the Supreme Administrative Court’s practice in this area (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted in particular that between 2001 and 2005 the practice of the Supreme Administrative Court had been inconsistent with respect to the applicability of certain procedural guarantees in a particular case concerning the dismissal of officials of the Ministry of the Interior. In the applicants’ case, the Supreme Administrative Court decided that the guarantees in question did not apply and rejected their appeal against the lawfulness of their dismissal, while in another case concerning the same facts, it took the opposite position and declared the order of dismissal void for failure to respect those guarantees.

The European Court also noted that there was a mechanism in domestic law permitting that situation to be remedied, i.e. the possibility of applying for interpretation before the plenum of the Supreme Administrative Court, but no such application was ever brought.

The case also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings against one of the applicants (violation of Article 6§1). This question is being examined in the Kitov group (37104/97, Section 4.2).

• Preliminary information has been provided by the authorities on 14/10/2010. Bilateral contacts are under way in order to collect the additional information necessary for the presentation of an action plan/report to the Committee.

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.

18967/03           Mutishev and others, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

This case concerns the failure to execute a final judgment of 22/03/2002 restoring to the applicants the right of property of 28 plots of land, amounting 104,8 hectares, which had been collectivised during the communist era (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court noted that there had been a great delay – more than five years – before some of the land (16 hectares) was restored and noted the inertia of the authorities in that respect. In addition, although the municipal authorities had taken a decision in 2003 to restore a further 4,2 hectares to the applicants, they had not yet done so at the time the Court delivered its judgment.

As for the failure to execute the judgment with respect to 84,65 hectares of farmland, the sole reason put forward by the government and the municipal service was the application to the applicants’ case of a provision of law (Article 10, point 8 of the Law of 1991 on the ownership and use of farmland) providing that farmland may be given back to property owners up to a limit of 20 hectares (and beyond that limit, an application could be made for compensation), even though a decision of 26/03/2003 to that effect by the Municipal Agricultural Service had been quashed by a domestic court. The European Court found that the administration had provided no specific information on the existence of legitimate reasons for refusing to restore the land. The Court held that the interference with the applicants’ right was unlawful with respect to the principle of the rule of law, insofar as the only ground for refusing execution was the application by the municipal service of the legal provision mentioned above.

The Court recalled the absence in Bulgarian law of a remedy whereby the administrative authorities could be directly compelled to execute the judgment of 22/03/2002.The European Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41.

17353/03           Naydenov, arrêt du 26/11/2009, définitif le  26/02/2010

L'affaire concerne la non-exécution d'une décision administrative du 22/01/1998 accordant au requérant la restitution du droit de propriété sur deux terrains agricoles qui avaient appartenu à son père avant la collectivisation de l'époque communiste (violation de l'article 1, Protocole n° 1). La décision indiquait que les terrains à restituer seraient déterminés par un plan des parcelles nouvellement découpées -qui devait être élaboré, adopté et approuvé par les autorités.

La Cour européenne a constaté que les autorités bulgares n'avaient pas agi avec la cohérence et la diligence requises par l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1. La Cour européenne a noté que dix ans après la reconnaissance officielle du droit du requérant à la restitution et/ou à l'indemnisation, la procédure qui était entre les mains des autorités, n'avait pas encore abouti. Lorsque la Cour européenne a rendu son arrêt, il semblait que des mesures visant à la réalisation des droits du requérant étaient adoptées ou imminentes.

• Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 14/10/2010. 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.

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.

- 17 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[21]

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

24186/04           Bachvarovi, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

56753/00           Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

10913/04           Georgievi, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

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

30945/04           Kayriakovi, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

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

42617/02          Vladimirova and others, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 26/05/2009

19162/03           Yurukova and Samundzhi, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

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.

22627/03           Zaharievi, arrêt du 02/07/2009, définitif le 10/12/2009

Cette affaire concerne l’atteinte au droit au respect des biens des requérants en raison des modalités d’exécution d’un arrêt de la Cour suprême administrative accordant aux requérants une indemnisation sous forme d’un certain nombre d’actions dans une entreprise. En 2003, les autorités nationales ont transféré aux requérants le même nombre d’actions d’une autre société qui avait absorbé l’entreprise concernée, sans se pencher sur la question de savoir si la valeur du même nombre d’actions n’était pas différente selon qu’il s’agissait de l’une ou de l’autre société. La demande des requérants en vue d’un réajustement du nombre d’actions a été refusée par le ministère compétent au motif que l’arrêt de la Cour suprême administrative était devenu définitif. Les 23/11/2004 et 31/05/2005, la Cour administrative suprême a déclaré irrecevable le recours des requérants contre ce refus.  

La Cour européenne a considéré que l’octroi automatique d’actions de la société absorbante, combiné avec l’absence d’un recours effectif permettant d’examiner au fond les demandes des requérants de réajustement du nombre d’actions, a conduit à la rupture du juste équilibre à ménager entre la protection du droit de propriété des requérants et les exigences de l’intérêt général (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

La Cour européenne a estimé que la question de l’application de l’article 41 (satisfaction équitable) n’était pas en état pour ce qui est du dommage matériel et moral.

• Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 14/10/2010. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours en vue de réunir les informations complémentaires nécessaires à la présentation d'un plan/bilan d'action.

- 47 cases of length of criminal proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Kitov group) These cases concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants between 1986 and 1999 (violations of Article 6§1). Several cases also relate to the lack of an effective remedy at the applicants' disposal against the excessive length of the proceedings (violations of Article 13). The cases of Al Akidi, Belchev, Dimov, E.M.K., Hamanov, Hristov, Kolev, Nedyalkov, Nikolova No. 2, Pekov, Popov, Toshev, Vachev, Vasilev and Rangelov also concern violations of the Convention related to the applicants’ detention between 1993 and 2003 (violations of Article 5§§1, 3, 4 and 5). Individual measures: Concerning violations of Article 5, the applicants detained in these cases were released. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage the applicants suffered on account of the violations, with the exception of the Ivanov case in which the applicant did not submit claim any just satisfaction. • Additional information is awaited on the state of the proceedings in the Belchev, Hamanov, Kolev, Nedyalkov, Sidjimov and Valkov cases and, where appropriate, on their acceleration. General measures: During bilateral consultations with the Secretariat in Sofia on 15-16/06/2010, the authorities presented extensive information on the issue of excessive length of proceedings. In August and October 2010, this information was provided in writing. On the basis of this information, the Secretariat is preparing a draft interim resolution to take stock of the progress achieved and identify outstanding issues. The most important measures adopted are summarised below. I. Excessive length of criminal proceedings and effective remedies in this respect: 1) Violations of Article 6§1: (a) Legislative reform: A new Code of Criminal Procedure, adopted in 2005, entered into force on 29/04/2006. Its adoption is part of a global reform of criminal justice in Bulgaria, aimed in particular at accelerating criminal proceedings. For instance, the 2005 Code explicitly introduces the obligation for courts and investigation authorities to examine criminal cases within a reasonable time. Further, cases in which the accused is in detention are investigated and decided by the court with priority compared to other cases (Article 22). Many other new provisions aim to accelerate proceedings, the most important among them providing short time-limits for the examining criminal cases and for postponing their examination (Articles 252, 271 and 345), as well as wider use of simplified proceedings (Articles 362-367, 370‑374 and 356-361). (b) Monitoring mechanisms and disciplinary measures: The application of the 2005 Code of Criminal Procedure is monitored by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice. In addition, the Inspectorate of the Supreme Judicial Council supervises the respect of procedural time-limits by magistrates through planned controls. The authorities also provided information on disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council. (c) Statistical data: In June 2007 the Bulgarian authorities provided statistical data concerning the length of criminal proceedings before first-instance courts. According to these data, in 2006 district courts closed 79 901 criminal cases in less than 3 months from when they were seised, while 23 285 cases were not closed within 3 months. Regional courts closed 14 409 cases in less than 3 months, while 2524 cases were not closed in 3 months. During the same period, 9 510 appeals were lodged against district courts’ judgments and 1 479 against regional courts’ judgments. The authorities consider that the relatively small number of appeals suggests that the length of criminal proceedings in the majority of the cases is relatively short. At the beginning of 2006, the number of pending cases before district courts was 23 187, while at the end of 2006 this number had diminished to 20 296. The equivalent numbers as regards regional courts are 2 460 at the beginning of 2006 and 1 089 at the end of that year. The authorities believe that these statistics are indicative of a positive, stable tendency in the functioning of the criminal justice system as regards length of proceedings. In October 2010 the authorities provided additional statistical data. (d) Awareness-raising and training activities: Seminars and other training activities on the Convention and the case-law of the European Court (including Art. 6 and 13) are regularly organised by the National Institute of Justice (more that 23 seminars for more than 798 participants - judges, prosecutors and national experts - took place in the period 2001-2006). Furthermore, the authorities noted that during 2007-2009, the improvement of the qualification of Bulgarian magistrates and of their knowledge of the Convention and of the European Court’s case-law has been one of their priorities. 2) Violations of Article 13: Articles 368 and 369 of the new Code of Criminal Proceedings, which superseded Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Proceedings of 1974, provided the possibility for a defendant to ask for the transfer of his or her case to a competent court once a period of 1 or 2 years had elapsed since the beginning of the preliminary investigation, according to the gravity of the charges. The court examining the request could order the prosecutor to bring the preliminary investigation to an end within two months or put an end to the criminal proceedings. In its judgment in Ganchev (No. 57855/00, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007), the European Court declared inadmissible a complaint under Article 6§1 as, because the applicant had not filed a request under Article 239a, he had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available. Articles 368 and 369 were repealed in May 2010. This amendment was criticised in a communication to the Committee of Ministers submitted under Rule 9 by the Foundation Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights. In their response, the authorities indicated that the provisions at issue have mostly been a ground for closure of criminal proceedings, and that they did not offer a guarantee of thorough investigation. The authorities consider that new provisions concerning disciplinary measures where time-limits are systematically exceeded or if there are unjustified delays, could be viewed as a guarantee for the celerity of criminal proceedings (the Rule 9 communication, and the responses of the Bulgarian authorities, are available on the Committee of Ministers’ website, see DH-DD(2010)335) In October 2010, the authorities indicated that a draft law to amend the Act on State and Municipal Responsibility for Damage has been prepared with a view to introducing the possibility to request compensation for excessive length of proceedings. II. Violations concerning pre-trial detention: 1) Unlawfulness of the applicant's detention after expiry of the time-limit for detention (violation of Article 5§1 in the Popov case): No specific measure appears to be necessary (the prosecutor's decision to transmit the request for release to the court instead of ordering the applicant's release was contrary to the domestic law, finding confirmed by the domestic court which received this request – see §§75-76 of the judgment of the European Court). 2) Excessive length of house arrest (violations of Article 5§3 in the cases of Nikolova No. 2 and Pekov): Although as from 01/01/2000 house arrest may only be ordered by a court, and not as formerly by a prosecutor, the Bulgarian authorities are invited to consider sending the judgment in this case to the competent courts with an explanatory note drawing their attention to the requirements of the Convention concerning the length and the justification of such measures (§§61-62 and 67-68 of the judgment of the European Court). • Information is awaited on the dissemination of the case of Nikolova No. 2.  3) Excessive length of the detention on remand, violation of the right to be brought before a judge (violations of Article 5§3) and lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of the pre-trial detention (Article 5§4): The cases of Al Akidi, Belchev, Dimov, E.M.K., Hamanov, Hristov, Kolev, Nedyalkov, Nikolova No. 2, Pekov, Popov, Toshev, Vachev and Rangelov present similarities to the Assenov (judgment of 28/10/1998) and Nikolova (judgment of 25/03/1999) cases closed by Resolutions ResDH(2000)109 and ResDH(2000)110, following a legislative reform of criminal procedure which took effect from 01/01/2000. 4) Violation of Article 5§4 in the Nedyalkov case (due the competent court's refusal to examine an applicant's request for release after expiry of the time-limit provided in domestic law for detention): The Court observed that the domestic court's decision was contrary to established practice in this field (§79 of the Nedyalkov case). • Assessment: For this reason, no specific measure appears to be necessary.  5) Lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of house arrest (violations of Article 5§4 in the cases of Nikolova No. 2, Pekov and Vachev): The Court noted (§55 of the Vachev judgment) that in 2000, after the facts in this case, the Code of Criminal Procedure was modified: Article 151§2 introduced a full initial and subsequent judicial review of this measure (see also Articles 62 and 270 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure). 6) Non-adversarial nature of proceedings before an appellate Court and before the Supreme Court (violations of Article 5§4): The E.M.K., Hristov, Kolev and Rangelov cases present similarities to that of Ilijkov (judgment of 26/07/2001), closed following the enactment in 2003 of a legislative reform of appeals against pre-trial detention (Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)158). 7) Lack of prompt examination of the requests for release (violations of Article 5§4 in the Kolev and Popov cases): It has already been noted that following the amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure which entered into force on 01/01/2000, courts are required to consider the requests for release within very short time-limits (see also Article 65 of the new Code Code of Criminal Procedure). However, as such time-limits are specified only at the preliminary investigation stage of criminal cases, it would be necessary to inform the competent courts of the requirements of Article 5§4 of the Convention concerning this matter, and more particularly of the obligation also to examine promptly requests for release made at the trial stage. • Information is awaited in this respect. 8) Lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention in the Toshev case (Article 5§4): The case presents similarities to the Asenov case (judgment of 15/07/2005). 9) Lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 (violations of Article 5§5): The cases of Belchev, Hamanov and Vachev present similarities to the Yankov case (39084/97, 1108th meeting, March 2011). III. Publication of the judgments of the European Court: The judgments in Belchev, Hamanov, Kitov, Nedyalkov, Nikolova No. 2, S.H.K., Sidjimov and Zhbanov have been published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg. The Zhbanov judgment was also published in the first issue of the new quarterly journal European Law and Integration, published by the Ministry of Justice in 1000 copies for distribution to magistrates and academic circles. The Deputies, 1.             adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)223 as it appears in the Volume of Resolutions; 2.             decided to resume consideration of the progress made by the end of 2011 at the latest, with regard to the question of effective remedy and by mid-2012 at the latest, with regard to the question of the excessive length of judicial proceedings.

- 47 affaires de durée de procédures pénales et d’absence de recours effectif (Voir Annexe pour la liste des affaires dans le groupe Kitov) Ces affaires concernent la durée excessive des procédures pénales engagées contre les requérants entre 1986 et 1999 (violations de l’article 6§1). Plusieurs affaires concernent également l'absence de recours effectif à la disposition des requérants pour dénoncer la durée des procédures pénales (violations de l'article 13). Les affaires Al Akidi, Belchev, Dimov, E.M.K., Hamanov, Hristov, Kolev, Nedyalkov, Nikolova n° 2, Pekov, Popov, Toshev, Vachev, Vasilev et Rangelov ont trait également à différentes violations de la Convention, liées à la détention des requérants entre 1993 et 2003 (violations de l’article 5§§1, 3, 4 et 5). Mesure de caractère individuel : S’agissant des violations de l’article 5, les requérants détenus dans ces affaires ont été remis en liberté. Le préjudice moral que les requérants ont subi en raison des violations de la Convention a été indemnisé par la Cour européenne, sauf dans l’affaire Ivanov où le requérant n’a soumis aucune demande au titre de la satisfaction équitable. • Des informations complémentaires sont attendues sur l’état des procédures pénales dans les affaires Belchev, Hamanov, Kolev, Nedyalkov, Sidjimov et Valkov, le cas échéant, sur leur accélération. Mesures de caractère général : Au cours des consultations bilatérales entre le Secrétariat et les autorités compétentes qui ont eu lieu à Sofia, le 15-16/06/2010, les autorités ont présenté des informations extensives sur la question de la durée excessive des procédures. En août et en octobre 2010, ces informations ont été fournies par écrit. Sur la base de ces informations, le Secrétariat prépare un projet de résolution intérimaire afin de dresser le bilan des progrès réalisés et d'identifier les questions en suspens. Les mesures les plus importantes prises par les autorités sont résumées ci-dessous. I. Durée excessive des procédures pénales et recours effectif à cet égard : 1) Violations de l’article 6§1 : a) Réformes législatives: Un nouveau Code de procédure pénale, adopté en 2005, est entré en vigueur le 29/04/2006. L’adoption de ce code fait partie de la réforme globale de la justice pénale en Bulgarie visant notamment l’accélération des procédures pénales. Par exemple, il introduit explicitement l’obligation pour les tribunaux et les organes chargés de l’instruction préliminaire d’examiner les affaires pénales dans un délai raisonnable ; de plus, les affaires dans lesquelles l’accusé est détenu doivent être instruites et tranchées par les tribunaux en priorité par rapport aux autres affaires (article 22). De nombreuses autres nouvelles dispositions visent également l’accélération des procédures. Les plus importantes prévoient de courts délais pour l’examen d’une affaire et pour son report (articles 252, 271 et 345) ainsi que l’utilisation plus étendue de procédures simplifiées (articles 356-361, 362-367 et 370-374). b) Mécanismes de monitoring et mesures disciplinaires : Les autorités ont indiqué que le monitoring de l’application du Code de procédure pénale de 2005 est assuré par l’Inspectorat du Ministère de la Justice. De plus, l’Inspectorat du Conseil suprême de la magistrature supervise le respect des délais procéduraux par les magistrats, par le biais d’inspections planifiées. Les autorités ont également fourni des informations sur les procédures disciplinaires devant le Conseil suprême de la magistrature. c) Données statistiques En juin 2007, les autorités bulgares ont fourni des statistiques sur la durée des procédures pénales devant les tribunaux de première instance. Selon ces données, en 2006 les tribunaux de district avaient clos l’examen de 79 901 affaires pénales en moins de 3 mois à compter de la date de saisine, alors que 23 285 affaires n’avaient pu être closes dans un tel délai. Les tribunaux régionaux avaient clos l’examen de 14 409 affaires en moins de 3 mois alors que 2 524 affaires n’avaient pu être closes dans un tel délai. Au cours de la même période, 9 510 appels ont été introduits contre des jugements des tribunaux de district et 1 479 contre des jugements des tribunaux régionaux. Les autorités considèrent que le nombre relativement faible d’appels suggère que la durée des procédures pénales est relativement courte dans la majorité des affaires.  Début 2006, 23 187 affaires étaient pendantes devant les tribunaux de district, alors qu’à la fin de 2006 ce nombre avait été réduit à 20 296. Les chiffres respectifs pour les tribunaux régionaux étaient de 2 460 affaires début de 2006 et 1 089 affaires en fin d’année. Les autorités considèrent que ces statistiques indiquent une tendance positive stable dans le fonctionnement du système de justice pénale en ce qui concerne la durée des procédures. Les autorités ont fourni des données statistiques supplémentaires en octobre 2010. d) Sensibilisation et formation : Des séminaires et autres types de formations sur la Convention et la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne (y compris sur les articles 6 et 13) sont régulièrement organisés par l’Institut national de la justice (plus de 23 séminaires pour plus de 798 participants – juges, procureurs, experts nationaux - ont eu lieu pour la période 2001-2006). En outre, les autorités ont indiqué qu’au cours de la période 2007-2010, l’amélioration de la qualification des magistrats a été une priorité, y compris en ce qui concerne leur connaissance de la Convention et de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne. 2) Violations de l’article 13 : Les articles 368 et 369 du nouveau Code de procédure pénale, qui ont remplacé l’article 239a du Code de procédure pénale de 1974, prévoyaient la possibilité pour l’accusé de demander le renvoi de son affaire devant le tribunal compétent lorsqu’une période de 1 à 2 ans, selon la gravité des charges, s’était écoulée depuis le début de l’enquête préliminaire. Le tribunal saisi de la demande pouvait ordonner au procureur de terminer l’enquête préliminaire dans un délai de deux mois ou de mettre fin à la procédure pénale. Dans l’arrêt Ganchev (n° 57855/00, arrêt du 12/04/2007, définitif le 12/07/2007), la Cour européenne a déclaré irrecevable pour non-épuisement des voies de recours internes le grief tiré de l’article 6§1, le requérant n’ayant pas fait usage du recours prévu par l’article 239a.  Les articles 368 et 369 ont été abrogés en mai 2010. Cette abrogation a été critiquée dans une communication au Comité des Ministres soumise par la fondation « Avocats bulgares pour les droits de l’homme » en vertu de la Règle 9. En réponse, les autorités ont indiqué que les dispositions abrogées avaient surtout servi de motif de clôture des procédures pénales, sans apporter la garantie d’une enquête complète. Les autorités considèrent que des nouvelles dispositions relatives à la possibilité de prendre des mesures disciplinaires en cas de non-respect systématique des délais ou de retards injustifiés pourraient être vues comme une garantie pour la célérité des procédures pénales (La communication soumise en vertu de la Règle 9 et les réponses des autorités bulgares sont disponibles sur le site du Comité des Ministres, voir DH‑DD(2010)335). En octobre 2010, les autorités ont indiqué qu’un projet de loi modifiant la loi sur la responsabilité de l’Etat et des municipalités avait été élaboré, afin de prévoir la possibilité de demander une indemnisation en cas de dépassement du délai raisonnable. II. Violations concernant la détention provisoire :  1) Maintien illégal en détention provisoire en dépassement du délai maximal de la détention (violation de l’article 5§1dans l’affaire Popov) : aucune mesure spécifique ne semble être nécessaire (la décision du procureur de transmettre la demande du requérant de mise en liberté au tribunal au lieu d’ordonner sa remise en liberté était contraire au droit interne, constat confirmé par le tribunal interne saisi de l’affaire – voir §§75-76 de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne).  2) Durée excessive de l'assignation à résidence (violations de l'article 5§3 dans les affaires Nikolova n° 2 et Pekov) : bien qu'à partir du 01/01/2000 l'assignation à résidence ne puisse être ordonnée que par un tribunal, et non comme jusqu'à lors par un procureur, les autorités bulgares sont invitées à diffuser l’arrêt Nikolova n° 2 aux tribunaux compétents avec une lettre circulaire, pour attirer leur attention sur les exigences de la Convention concernant la durée et la justification d'une telle mesure (§§60-62 et 67-68 de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne). • Des informations sont attendues sur la diffusion de l’arrêt Nikolova n° 2. 3) Durée excessive de la détention provisoire, violation du droit d’être traduit devant un juge (violations de l’article 5§3) et absence de contrôle judiciaire effectif de la légalité de cette détention (article 5§4) : Les affaires Al Akidi, Belchev, Dimov, E.M.K., Hamanov, Hristov, Kolev, Nedyalkov, Nikolova n° 2, Pekov, Popov, Toshev, Vachev et Rangelov sont à rapprocher des affaires Assenov (arrêt du 28/10/1998) et Nikolova (arrêt du 25/03/1999) dont l’examen a été clos respectivement par les Résolutions ResDH(2000)109 et ResDH(2000)110 après une réforme de la procédure pénale qui a pris effet le 01/01/2000. 4) Violation de l’article 5§4 dans l’affaire Nedyalkov (refus du tribunal compétent d'examiner une demande de mise en liberté après l’expiration du délai légal maximal de la détention) : la Cour européenne a relevé que la décision prise par le tribunal interne en l’espèce était contraire à la jurisprudence interne en la matière (§79 de l’arrêt Nedyalkov). • Evaluation : Pour cette raison, aucune mesure spécifique ne paraît nécessaire. 5) Absence de contrôle judiciaire de l’assignation à domicile (violations de l'article 5§4 dans les affaires Nikolova n° 2, Pekov et Vachev) : la Cour européenne a noté (§55 de l'arrêt Vachev) que postérieurement aux faits de l'espèce, en 2000, le Code de procédure pénale avait été modifié et que son article 151§2 prévoyait désormais un contrôle judiciaire initial et continu de la légalité de cette mesure (voir également les articles 62 et 270 du nouveau Code de procédure pénale). 6) Absence de procédure contradictoire devant une cour d’appel et devant la Cour suprême (violations de l’article 5§4) : les affaires E.M.K., Hristov, Kolev et Rangelov sont à rapprocher de l’affaire Ilijkov (arrêt du 26/07/2001), close à la suite d'une réforme législative de la procédure d'appel contre la détention provisoire, adoptée en 2003 (Résolution CM/ResDH(2007)158). 7) Absence d'examen à bref délai des demandes de mise en liberté (violations de l’article 5§4 dans les affaires Kolev et Popov) : il a déjà été noté qu'à la suite des amendements du Code de procédure pénale entrés en vigueur le 01/01/2000, les tribunaux sont tenus de se prononcer sur les demandes de mise en liberté dans des délais très courts (voir également l’article 65 du nouveau Code de procédure pénale). Cependant, puisque de tels délais ne sont prévus que pour la phase de l'enquête préliminaire, il serait nécessaire d'informer les juridictions compétentes des exigences de l'article 5§4 de la Convention en la matière, et plus particulièrement de l'obligation d'examiner également à bref délai les demandes de mise de mise en liberté formulées au stade de l'examen de l'affaire pénale par le tribunal. • Des informations sont attendues à cet égard. 8) Absence de contrôle judiciaire de la légalité de la détention (article 5§4) dans l'affaire Toshev: cette affaire est à rapprocher de l’affaire Asenov (arrêt du 15/07/2005). 9) Inexistence d'un droit à réparation pour une détention contraire à l'article 5 (violations de l'article 5§5) : les affaires Belchev, Hamanov et Vachev sont à rapprocher de l'affaire Yankov (39084/97, 1108e réunion, mars 2011). III. Publication des arrêts de la Cour européenne : Les arrêts Belchev, Hamanov, Kitov, Nedyalkov, Nikolova n° 2, S.H.K., Sidjimov et Zhbanov, ont été publiés sur le site Internet du Ministère de la justice www.mjeli.government.bg. L’arrêt Zhbanov a également été publié dans le premier numéro de la revue trimestrielle « Intégration et droit européens » qui est une édition du Ministère de la justice tirée à 1000 exemplaires et qui sera distribuée aux magistrats et au milieu universitaire. Les Délégués, 1.             adoptent la Résolution intérimaire CM/ResDH(2010)223 telle qu’elle figure au Volume de Résolutions ; 2.             décident de reprendre l’examen des progrès réalisés au plus tard à la fin de 2011 pour ce qui est de la question du recours effectif et à la mi-2012 pour ce qui est de la question de la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires.

- 37 cases of length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy 45950/99    Djangozov, judgment of 08/07/2004, final on 08/10/2004 56793/00    Babichkin, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006 28583/03    Bratovanov, judgment of 23/04/2009, final on 23/07/2009 27918/02    Demirevi, judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 28/08/2009 47829/99    Dimitrov, judgment of 23/09/2004, final on 23/12/2004 15154/02    Givezov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008, rectified on 30/09/2009 62722/00    Gospodinov, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007 58497/00    Hadjibakalov, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006 7254/02     Ilievi, judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 28/08/2009 19207/04    Ivanov Petko, judgment of 26/03/2009, final on 26/06/2009 14226/04    Ivanovi, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010 9143/02     Jeliazkov and others, judgment of 03/04/2008, final on 03/07/2008 55350/00    Kambourov, judgment of 14/02/2008, final on 14/05/2008 60939/00    Karcheva and Shtarbova, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 28/12/2006 74487/01    Kavalovi, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008 44626/98    Kiurkchian, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 24/06/2005 76763/01    Kostova, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007 9161/02     Kouncheva, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008 57641/00    Kovacheva and Hadjiilieva, judgment of 29/03/2007, final on 29/06/2007 29802/02    Krastev, judgment of 24/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008 66535/01    Kroushev, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008 77147/01    Kuiyumdjiyan, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 24/08/2007 20568/02    Marinova and Radeva, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009 50954/99    Maslenkovi, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008 69316/01    Merdzhanov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008 15099/04    Nachev, judgment of 05/11/2009, final on 05/02/2010 72855/01    Parashkevanova, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007 39855/03    Pavlova, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010 47877/99    Rachevi, judgment of 23/09/2004, final on 23/12/2004 7148/04     Ruga, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 06/11/2009 16880/02    Sheremetov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008 59523/00    Simizov, judgment of 18/10/2007, final on 18/01/2008 58828/00    Stefanova, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 11/04/2007 19256/03    Stefanova Donka, judgment of 01/10/2009, final on 01/01/2010 39832/98    Todorov Nikolai Petkov, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005 2380/03     Tzvyatkov, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010 55956/00    Vatevi, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 28/12/2006 These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). Eighteen of them also relate to the lack of an effective remedy whereby the applicants might complain of the excessive length of the proceedings (violations of Article 13). In addition, the European Court noted that the delays in the civil proceedings in some cases (for example, Djangozov and Todorov cases) were mainly due to the length of two sets of criminal proceedings, itself excessive. Individual measures: The proceedings in all cases, except those of Kambourov, Kavalovi and Merdzhanov, have been closed. • Further information is awaited on the state of the proceedings in the above-mentioned cases and on their acceleration, if appropriate. General measures: During bilateral consultations with the Secretariat in Sofia on 15-16/06/2010, the authorities presented extensive information on the issue of excessive length of proceedings. In August and October 2010, this information was provided in writing. On the basis of this information, the Secretariat is preparing a draft interim resolution to take stock of the progress achieved and identify outstanding issues. The most important measures adopted are summarised below. 1) Excessive length of civil proceedings (a) Legislative reform: In 2007, a new Code of Civil Procedure was adopted, which entered into force on 01/03/2008. It is part of a global reform of civil justice in Bulgaria, aiming in particular to accelerate civil proceedings. For instance, the provisions of the 2007 Code aim to prompt parties to exercise their procedural rights in due time, or provide new, simplified procedures. Furthermore the grounds on which a cassation appeal can be submitted to the Supreme Court of Cassation have been limited. (b) Monitoring mechanisms and disciplinary measures: The application of the 2007 Code of Civil Procedure is monitored by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice. In addition, the Inspectorate of the Supreme Judicial Council supervises the respect of procedural time-limits by magistrates through planned controls. The authorities also provided information on disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council. (c) Statistical data: In June 2006, the Bulgarian authorities presented a report by two Bulgarian NGOs (the Centre for Liberal Strategies and the Agency for sociological and marketing research (Alpha research)) according to which the average length of civil proceedings in Bulgaria was 350 days. In 2007, the Bulgarian authorities provided official statistical data concerning the length of civil proceedings before first-instance courts. According to this data, in 2006 district courts closed 131 221 civil cases in less than 3 months from when they were seised, while 50 188 cases were not closed in 3 months. Regional courts, closed 70 353 cases in less than 3 months, while 16 137 were not closed within 3 months. During the same period, 25 018 appeals were lodged against district courts’ judgments and 11 147 against regional courts’ judgments. The authorities consider that the relatively low number of appeals suggests that the length of the proceedings is relatively short in the majority of cases. At the beginning of 2006, the number of pending cases before district courts was 50 120, while at the end of 2006 this number had decreased to 46 501. The authorities consider that these statistics are indicative of a positive, stable tendency in the functioning of the civil justice system as regards length of proceedings. In October 2010 the authorities provided additional statistical data. (d) Awareness-raising and training activities: Seminars and other training activities on the Convention and the case-law of the European Court (including Art. 6 and 13) are regularly organised by the National Institute of Justice (more that 23 seminars for more than 798 participants – judges, prosecutors and national experts – took place in the period 2001-2006). Furthermore, the authorities noted that during the period 2007-2009, the improvement of the qualification of Bulgarian magistrates and of their knowledge of the Convention and of the European Court’s case-law has been one of their priorities. 2) Lack of effective domestic remedy to challenge excessive length of civil proceedings: In July 1999, a new provision of Article 217a of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 was adopted, allowing a party to proceedings to lodge a complaint against the length of the civil proceedings with the court superior to the court dealing with the merits. The president of the higher court is entitled to give binding instructions to the competent court. Articles 255-57 of the 2007 Code, which superseded Article 217a of the 1952 Code, provide that where the court dealing with the merits does not take a procedural step in due time, a party may, at any stage of the proceedings, make a request to the superior court for an appropriate time-limit to be fixed for that procedural step to be taken. The authorities provided information on the application of these provisions. In addition, they indicated that a draft law for the amendment of the Act on State and Municipal Responsibility for Damage has been prepared with a view to introducing the possibility to request compensation for excessive length of proceedings.  3) Excessive length of criminal proceedings and effective remedies in this respect: Measures to be taken are under examination in the framework of the Kitov group (37104/97, Section 4.2). 4) Publication and dissemination:  The judgments in Djangozov, Rachevi and Kiurkchian were published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg. The first two judgments were also disseminated to the competent courts and to the competent prosecutor’s office. The Deputies, 1.             adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)223 as it appears in the Volume of Resolutions; 2.             decided to resume consideration of the progress made by the end of 2011 at the latest, with regard to the question of effective remedy and by mid-2012 at the latest, with regard to the question of the excessive length of judicial proceedings.

- 37 affaires de durée de procédures civiles et d’absence de recours effectif 45950/99    Djangozov, arrêt du 08/07/2004, définitif le 08/10/2004 56793/00    Babichkin, arrêt du 10/08/2006, définitif le 10/11/2006 28583/03    Bratovanov, arrêt du 23/04/2009, définitif le 23/07/2009 27918/02    Demirevi, arrêt du 28/05/2009, définitif le 28/08/2009 47829/99    Dimitrov, arrêt du 23/09/2004, définitif le 23/12/2004 15154/02    Givezov, arrêt du 22/05/2008, définitif le 22/08/2008, rectifié le 30/09/2009 62722/00    Gospodinov, arrêt du 10/05/2007, définitif le 10/08/2007 58497/00    Hadjibakalov, arrêt du 08/06/2006, définitif le 08/09/2006 7254/02      Ilievi, arrêt du 28/05/2009, définitif le 28/08/2009 19207/04    Ivanov Petko, arrêt du 26/03/2009, définitif le 26/06/2009 14226/04    Ivanovi, arrêt du 07/01/2010, définitif le 07/04/2010 9143/02      Jeliazkov et autres, arrêt du 03/04/2008, définitif le 03/07/2008 55350/00    Kambourov, arrêt du 14/02/2008, définitif le 14/05/2008 60939/00    Karcheva et Shtarbova, arrêt du 28/09/2006, définitif le 28/12/2006 74487/01    Kavalovi, arrêt du 17/01/2008, définitif le 17/04/2008 44626/98    Kiurkchian, arrêt du 24/03/2005, définitif le 24/06/2005 76763/01    Kostova, arrêt du 03/05/2007, définitif le 03/08/2007 9161/02      Kouncheva, arrêt du 03/07/2008, définitif le 03/10/2008 57641/00    Kovacheva et Hadjiilieva, arrêt du 29/03/2007, définitif le 29/06/2007 29802/02    Krastev, arrêt du 24/07/2008, définitif le 01/12/2008 66535/01    Kroushev, arrêt du 03/07/2008, définitif le 03/10/2008 77147/01    Kuiyumdjiyan, arrêt du 24/05/2007, définitif le 24/08/2007 20568/02    Marinova et Radeva, arrêt du 02/07/2009, définitif le 02/10/2009 50954/99    Maslenkovi, arrêt du 08/11/2007, définitif le 02/06/2008 69316/01    Merdzhanov, arrêt du 22/05/2008, définitif le 22/08/2008 15099/04    Nachev, arrêt du 05/11/2009, définitif le 05/02/2010 72855/01    Parashkevanova, arrêt du 03/05/2007, définitif le 03/08/2007 39855/03    Pavlova, arrêt du 14/01/2010, définitif le 14/04/2010 47877/99    Rachevi, arrêt du 23/09/2004, définitif le 23/12/2004 7148/04      Ruga, arrêt du 02/07/2009, définitif le 06/11/2009 16880/02    Sheremetov, arrêt du 22/05/2008, définitif le 22/08/2008 59523/00    Simizov, arrêt du 18/10/2007, définitif le 18/01/2008 58828/00    Stefanova, arrêt du 11/01/2007, définitif le 11/04/2007 19256/03    Stefanova Donka, arrêt du 01/10/2009, définitif le 01/01/2010 39832/98    Todorov Nikolai Petkov, arrêt du 18/01/2005, définitif le 18/04/2005 2380/03      Tzvyatkov, arrêt du 22/10/2009, définitif le 22/01/2010 55956/00    Vatevi, arrêt du 28/09/2006, définitif le 28/12/2006 Ces affaires concernent la durée excessive de procédures civiles (violations de l’article 6§1). Dix-huit d’entre elles concernent également l'absence de recours effectif permettant de se plaindre du dépassement du délai raisonnable (violations de l’article 13). De plus, la Cour européenne a relevé que les retards dans les procédures civiles dans certaines affaires (par exemple Djangozov et Todorov) étaient dus en grande partie à la durée de deux procédures pénales, elle-même excessive. Mesures de caractère individuel: Les procédures dans toutes ces affaires sont terminées, à l’exception des affaires Kambourov, Kavalovi et Merdzhanov. • Des informations complémentaires sont attendues sur l'état d’avancement des procédures dans les affaires mentionnées ci-dessus et, le cas échéant, sur leur accélération. Mesures de caractère général: Au cours des consultations bilatérales entre le Secrétariat et les autorités compétentes qui ont eu lieu à Sofia, le 15-16/06/2010, les autorités ont présenté des informations extensives sur la question de la durée excessive des procédures. En août et en octobre 2010, ces informations ont été fournies par écrit. Sur la base de ces informations, le Secrétariat prépare un projet de résolution intérimaire afin de dresser le bilan des progrès réalisés et d’identifier les questions encore en suspens. Les mesures les plus importantes prises par les autorités sont résumées ci-dessous. 1) Durée excessive des procédures civiles a) Réformes législatives: En 2007, un nouveau Code de procédure civile a été adopté. L'adoption de ce code, entré en vigueur le 01/03/2008, fait partie de la réforme globale de la justice civile en Bulgarie visant, en particulier, l’accélération des procédures civiles. Par exemple, certaines dispositions du Code de procédure civile de 2007 ont pour objectif d’inciter les parties à exercer leurs droits procéduraux sans retard, alors que d’autres prévoient des procédures simplifiées. De plus, les moyens permettant l’introduction d’un recours en cassation devant la Cour suprême de cassation sont définis de manière plus restrictive. b) Mécanismes de monitoring et mesures disciplinaires : Les autorités ont indiqué que le monitoring de l’application du Code de procédure civile de 2007 est assuré par l’Inspectorat du Ministère de la Justice. De plus, l’Inspectorat du Conseil suprême de la magistrature supervise le respect des délais procéduraux par les magistrats, par le biais d’inspections planifiées. Les autorités ont également fourni des informations sur les procédures disciplinaires devant le Conseil suprême de la magistrature. c) Données statistiques: En juin 2006, les autorités bulgares ont présenté le rapport de deux ONG bulgares (Centre pour stratégies libérales et Agence de recherche sociologique et de marketing Alpha research) selon lequel la durée moyenne des procédures civiles en Bulgarie était de 350 jours. En 2007, les autorités bulgares ont fourni des données statistiques officielles concernant la durée des procédures civiles devant les tribunaux de première instance. Selon ces données, en 2006 les tribunaux de district avaient clos l'examen de 131 221 affaires civiles en moins de 3 mois, alors que 50 188 affaires civiles n’avaient pu être closes dans un tel délai. Les tribunaux régionaux avaient clos l'examen de 70 353 affaires civiles en moins de 3 mois, alors que 16 137 affaires n’avaient pu être terminées dans un tel délai. Au cours de la même période, 25 018 appels ont été introduits contre des jugements des tribunaux de district et 11 147 appels contre des jugements des tribunaux régionaux. Les autorités considèrent que le nombre relativement faible d'appels suggère que la durée des procédures civiles est relativement courte dans la majorité des affaires. Au début de l’année 2006, 50 120 affaires étaient pendantes devant les tribunaux de district, alors qu’à la fin de l’année ce nombre avait été réduit à 46 501 affaires. Les autorités considèrent que ces données statistiques indiquent une tendance positive stable dans le fonctionnement du système de la justice civile en ce qui concerne la durée des procédures civiles. En octobre 2010, les autorités ont fourni des données statistiques supplémentaires. d) Sensibilisation et formation : Des séminaires et autres types de formations sur la Convention et la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne (y compris sur les articles 6 et 13) sont régulièrement organisés par l’Institut national de la justice (plus de 23 séminaires pour plus de 798 participants - juges, procureurs, experts nationaux - ont eu lieu pour la période 2001-2006). De plus, les autorités ont indiqué qu’au cours de la période 2007-2010, l’amélioration de la qualification des magistrats, y compris en ce qui concerne leur connaissance de la Convention et de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne, a été une priorité. 2) Absence de recours interne effectif permettant de se plaindre de la durée excessive des procédures civiles : En juillet 1999, un nouvel article 217a a été introduit dans le Code de procédure civile de 1952, permettant aux justiciables de déposer une plainte contre la lenteur des procédures civiles devant le tribunal supérieur au tribunal saisi de l’affaire. Le président du tribunal supérieur peut donner des instructions obligatoires au tribunal saisi de l’affaire. Les articles 255-57 du Code de procédure civile de 2007, qui ont remplacé l’article 217a du Code de procédure civile de 1952, prévoient que, si le tribunal saisi de l’affaire n’accomplit pas un acte procédural à temps, les parties peuvent à tout moment demander au tribunal supérieur qu’un délai soit fixé pour l’accomplissement de l’acte procédural en question. Les autorités ont fourni des informations sur l’application de ces dispositions. De plus, elles ont indiqué qu’un projet de loi modifiant la loi sur la responsabilité de l’Etat et des municipalités a été élaboré, afin de prévoir la possibilité de demander une indemnisation en cas de dépassement du délai raisonnable. 3) Durée excessive des procédures pénales et recours effectifs à cet égard : Les mesures à prendre sont examinées dans le cadre de l'affaire Kitov (37104/97, rubrique 4.2). 4) Publication et diffusion : Les arrêts dans les affaires Djangozov, Rachevi et Kiurkchian ont été publiés sur le site Internet du Ministère de la justice www.mjeli.government.bg. Les deux premiers arrêts ont été diffusés aux juridictions internes compétentes et au parquet de district concerné. Les Délégués, 1.             adoptent la Résolution intérimaire CM/ResDH(2010)223 telle qu’elle figure au Volume de Résolutions ; 2.             décident de reprendre l’examen des progrès réalisés au plus tard à la fin de 2011 pour ce qui est de la question du recours effectif et à la mi-2012 pour ce qui est de la question de la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires.

68294/01           Kandzhov, judgment of 06/11/2008, final on 06/02/2009

47719/07           Zvezdev, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

These cases concern violations of the right to be brought promptly before a judge (violations of Article 5§3). The European Court noted that the applicants had been brought before a judge (in the case of Kandzhov) or released (in the case of Zvezdev) after two consecutive periods of police detention or detention ordered by a prosecutor, at the last possible moment, i.e. after 3 days and 23 hours in the case of Kandzhov and 4 days in the case of Zvezdev.

The European Court could see no special difficulties or exceptional circumstances which would have prevented the authorities from bringing the applicants before a judge much sooner, and taking into consideration the particular circumstances of each case, and found that these periods did not appear prompt as required by Article 5§3.

The Court observed that Bulgarian law did not clearly prohibit consecutive periods of police or prosecutorial detention before an arrestee was brought before a judge. The Court found that this deficiency in the relevant law could result in unacceptable delays incompatible with Article 5§3 (see Zvezdev, § 33). Later on these findings were confirmed in the Kolevi case (No 1108/02, Section 4.2).

The Kandzhov case also concerns the unlawful arrest and detention of the applicant in July 2000 on charges of “hooliganism” and “insult”, for displaying a banner deemed to insult the Minister of Justice and gathering signatures calling for the Minister’s resignation (violation of Article 5§1). The European Court noted that at the material time insult was a privately prosecutable offence, which could not attract a sentence of imprisonment and in respect of which the police had no power to conduct preliminary investigations. As regards the charge of hooliganism, the European Court referred to the relevant domestic decisions that had not contained anything which could suggest that the authorities could have reasonably believed that the applicant’s conduct had constituted hooliganism, as well as to the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Cassation according to which the applicant’s actions had not amounted to the constituent elements of that offence. It followed that the applicant’s detention between 10/07/2000 and 14/07/2000 had not constituted a “lawful” privation of liberty effected “on reasonable suspicion” of his having committed an offence (violation of Art. 5§1). This case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression in that the measures taken against him were not “prescribed by law” and were disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (violation of Article 10).

The Zvezdev case also concerns the lack of judicial control of the lawfulness of prosecutorial detention of seventy-two hours (violation of Article 5§4). Furthermore, the Court found in that case that Bulgarian law provided no enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 (violation of Article 5§5).

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

• Assessment: no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

            1) Violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge (both cases) (Article 5§3): The European Court noted that the prosecutors had not taken the necessary measures to ensure the applicants’ prompt appearance before the competent court. Having observed that Bulgarian law did not clearly prohibit consecutive periods of police or prosecutorial detention before an arrestee was brought before a judge, the Court found that this deficiency in the law could result in unacceptable delays incompatible with Article 5§3. Bulgarian law still does not explicitly prohibit consecutive periods of police and prosecutorial detention (Article 64 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act and Article 64 of the 2005 Code of Criminal Procedure).

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged by the authorities to prevent similar violations.

            2) Lack of judicial control of the lawfulness of the prosecutor-ordered detention in the Zvezdev case (violation of Article 5§4): An individual taken into police custody is entitled to seek judicial review of his detention (Article 63 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act). The application for release must be examined immediately. There is no such possibility for a person detained by a prosecutor on the ground of Article 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

• Information is awaited on the possibility to introduce into Bulgarian law a judicial control of the privation of liberty in similar cases. It should be noted that similar questions have already been raised in the cases of Stoichkov (9808/02, Section 4.2) and Svetoslav Dimitrov (55861/00, Section 4.2).

            3) Unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention in the Kandzhov case (violation of Article 5§1): The European Court noted that the decision of the prosecutor in charge to extend the applicant’s detention blatantly ignored the provisions of domestic law which were clear and comprehensible (see §§ 59-60 of the judgment). In the light of these considerations, the present violation seems to constitute an isolated incident due to the specific circumstances of the case. Publication of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to the competent authorities appear to be sufficient measures for the purposes of execution.

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

            4) Unlawful and disproportionate interference with the exercise by the applicant of his freedom of expression in the Kandzhov case (violation of Article 10): The present violation seems to constitute an isolated incident due to the specific circumstances of the case. Publication of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to the competent authorities appear to be sufficient measures for the purposes of execution.

• Information is awaited in particular on publication and dissemination of the Kandzhov judgment to the competent authorities.

            5) Lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 (violation of Article 5§5): the Zvezdev case presents similarities in this respect to the Yankov case (39084/97, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

- 51 cases against Croatia / 51 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.

25282/06           Dolenec, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to conduct a thorough, effective and independent investigation of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by prison guards on two occasions, on 18/09/2006 and 21/01/2007 (procedural violation of Article 3).

The European Court noted in respect of the first incident that the onus was primarily on the Varaždin County judge responsible for the execution of sentences, to whom the applicant had submitted his complaint of ill‑treatment, or other independent prosecuting or judicial authority, to examine the available evidence. However, the judge ignored the applicant’s allegations (§153 of the judgment). In respect of the second incident, the European Court noted that the Pula County Court judge had dismissed the applicant’s allegations without having heard any of the guards involved in person. In addition, the report of Pula Prison authorities submitted to the judge had not described the details of the incident (§157 of the judgment).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, as he was not able to prepare an adequate defence and was not afforded equality of arms (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3). In particular, the applicant did not have unrestricted access to the case file despite his repeated requests to this effect in criminal proceedings brought against him involving more than twenty counts of theft and aggravated theft. In addition, the applicant complained to the presiding judge that in February 2005 he had not been able to contact the counsel assigned to him by telephone and he requested permission for a visit to the prison from his counsel, but received no answer to this request (§212 of the judgment).

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

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

General measures: This case is partly similar to those of Beganović (46423/06, 1108th meeting, March 2011) and Šečić (40116/02, Section 4.2) regarding the lack of effective investigation and to that of Hanževački (17182/07, Section 4.2) regarding the violation of the right to a fair trial. The authorities have so far not provided an action plan or action report on this case.

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (31/08/2010): The judgment of the European Court has been translated and sent out to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, Central Office of the Prison System Administration and the courts involved in this case. It is also available on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr) and will be published in a periodical.

• 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, 04/11/2008 and 18/05/2010):

-  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 subsequent 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. The European Court’s recent judgment in the Dolenec case (25282/06, Section 4.2) concerning a lack of effective investigation, but in respect of allegations of violence by prison authorities, should also be noted.

• 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, 1108th meeting, March 2011) 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.

15766/03    Oršuš and others, judgment of 16/03/2010 - Grand Chamber                  CM/Inf/DH(2010)46 The case concerns discrimination against the applicants in that their placement in Roma-only classes, based on their inadequate command of the Croatian language, lacked objective and reasonable justification (violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1). The case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court in respect of the applicants' complaints (violation of Article 6§1).  Individual measures: Education is compulsory in Croatia for all children from six to fifteen. The applicants are all more than fifteen and therefore are not in the compulsory schooling system. • Assessment: Consequently, no individual measures are required in this case. General measures: On 04/10/2010 the Croatian government submitted an action plan setting out the measures taken and envisaged with the aim of preventing similar violations in the future. This action plan provides six groups of general measures and specifies the implementing authorities and a clear time-table for each measure envisaged. In particular, the measures relate to legislative amendments, creation of education models for Roma children, external evaluation of education of Roma in primary education, involvement of various stakeholders in the education process of Roma children (including their parents), development of infrastructure for education and socialisation of Roma children and implementation of National Roma Programme and Action plan for the Roma Inclusion Decade. • The assessment of the action plan will be made in a separate memorandum. The Deputies, 1.             noted that the Croatian authorities have submitted an action plan outlining a number of general measures and providing a clear timetable for their implementation; 2.             noted with interest that this action plan, which is summarised in Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)46, includes a number of positive elements aimed at providing safeguards against discrimination against Roma in primary education in Croatia; 3.             decided to declassify the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)46; 4.             invited the Croatian authorities to provide the Committee with further information on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum and on the developments regarding the measures to be taken; 5.             decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on general measures.

15766/03   Oršuš et autres, arrêt du 16/03/2010 - Grande Chambre                 CM/Inf/DH(2010)46 L’affaire concerne la discrimination subie par les requérants dans la mesure où leur affectation dans des classes réservées aux Roms en raison de leur maîtrise insuffisante de la langue croate n’était pas étayée par des motifs rigoureux et raisonnables (violation de l’article 14 combiné à l’article 2 du Protocole n° 1). Elle porte aussi sur la durée excessive de la procédure engagée devant la Cour constitutionnelle au sujet de la plainte des requérants (violation de l’article 6 §1). Mesures de caractère individuel : Les enfants âgés de six à quinze ans doivent obligatoirement être scolarisés en Croatie. Les requérants ont tous plus de quinze ans et ne relèvent donc plus du système d’enseignement obligatoire. • Evaluation : En conséquence, aucune mesure de caractère individuel n’est nécessaire en l’espèce. Mesures de caractère général : Le 04/10/2010, le gouvernement croate a soumis un plan d’action qui énumère les mesures prises et envisagées pour prévenir des violations similaires à l’avenir. Le plan d’action prévoit six groupes de mesures de caractère général. Il indique les autorités qui en sont responsables et un calendrier clair pour chaque mesure envisagée. En particulier, les mesures concernent des modifications législatives, la définition de modèles éducatifs pour les enfants de Roms, une évaluation externe de l’enseignement dispensé aux Roms à l’école primaire, l’intervention de toutes les parties prenantes au processus d’éducation des enfants roms (y compris leurs parents), le développement d’infrastructures pour l’éducation et l’intégration sociale des enfants roms, la mise en œuvre d’un programme national pour les Roms et la réalisation d’un plan d’action pour la Décennie d’intégration des Roms. • Le plan d’action sera évalué dans un Memorandum distinct. Les Délégués, 1.             notent que les autorités croates ont fourni un plan d’action présentant un certain nombre de mesures générales ainsi qu’un calendrier clair pour leur mise en œuvre ;  2.             notent avec intérêt que ce plan d’action qui a été résumé dans le Mémorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)46, inclut un certain nombre d’éléments positifs visant à fournir des garanties contre les discriminations contre les roms dans l’éducation primaire en Croatie ; 3.             décident de déclassifier le Mémorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)46 ; 4.             invitent les autorités croates à fournir au Comité des informations complémentaires sur les questions en suspens identifiées dans le Mémorandum et sur les développements concernant les mesures à prendre ; 5.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point lors de leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière d’informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures générales.

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.

• Assessment: In view of the European Court’s judgment in the Prežec case (48185/07, 1108th meeting, March 2011), slightly different from this case, it nonetheless appears that the right to a fair trial could still be an issue in Croatia.

• Information is thus awaited on an action plan/action report on measures envisaged or taken.

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.

- 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 (§29 of the judgment).

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 of his or her property prior to 30/10/2002 but to whom the property was not returned by that date (§30). 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 (§31).

• 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.  

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 (§39).

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

- 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.

- 13 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

17656/07           Alagić, judgment of 11/02/2010, final on 11/05/2010

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

24810/06           Parlov-Tkalčić, judgment of 22/12/2009, final on 22/03/2010

21846/08           Pavić, judgment of 28/01/2010, final on 28/04/2010

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, Parlov-Tkalčić, Pavićand 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, Pavić and Vujčić cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy (violations of Article 13). In the Oreb, Pavić 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, Pavić 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 Pavić and 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, Jakupović and Skokandić cases the domestic proceedings were closed on 15/09/2009, 20/07/2010 and 08/04/2010, respectively.

• Information is awaited on the current state of the pending proceedings in the cases of Alagić, Husić, Letica, Rizman and Vujčić, 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.

- 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 proceedings were concluded on 22/12/2009.

• 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.

                       - 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 and in the Šamija case on 17/09/2010. 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.  

• Assessment: It appears that no other individual measure is necessary.

General measures:

            1) Excessive length of enforcement proceedings

• Information provided by the Croatian 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, in 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 Šoštarićcases 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.

- 1 case against Cyprus and the Russian Federation / 1 affaire contre Chypre et la Fédération de Russie

25965/04    Rantsev, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 10/05/2010 DH-DD(2010)376E (Action Plan Cyprus); DH‑DD(2010)411E (Information provided by the Russian Federation) The case concerns human trafficking suffered by the applicant’s daughter from Russia to Cyprus and her subsequent death in Cyprus. The European Court found that the Cypriot authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation of the death of the applicant’s daughter, which should included an assessment of the allegation of human  trafficking (violation of Article 2). It also concluded that the daughter’s detention by the Cypriot authorities had been unlawful and arbitrary (violation of Article 5(1)). Having regard to the trafficking and the exploitation of human beings, the Court found first that Cypriot law provided no legal or administrative framework to ensure the protection of the applicant’s daughter and that in the circumstances of the case the authorities had failed to take appropriate measures and secondly that the Russian authorities had failed in their positive obligation to enquire into the allegations of human trafficking in this case (violations of Article 4). Human Trafficking The European Court considered that there can be no doubt that trafficking threatens the human dignity and fundamental freedoms of its victims and cannot be considered compatible with a democratic society and the values expounded in the Convention. The Court therefore concluded that trafficking, within the meaning of Article 4(a) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking (CETS No. 197)) falls within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention (§282). In arriving at its conclusion, the European Court noted that trafficking in human beings as a global phenomenon has increased significantly in recent years. It made reference to a number of international and European instruments, in particular the Conclusion of the UN Palermo Protocol in 2000 and the Anti-Trafficking Convention in 2005, which demonstrate the increasing recognition at international level of the prevalence of trafficking and the need for measure to combat it (§278). The explanatory report to the Anti-Trafficking Convention trafficking states in paragraphs 3 and 4 that “Trafficking in human beings, with the entrapment of its victims, is the modern form of the old, worldwide slave trade. It treats human beings as a commodity to be bought and sold, and to be put to forced labour … for a pittance or nothing at all. …. To be effective a strategy for combating trafficking in human beings must adopt a multi-disciplinary approach incorporating prevention, protection of human rights of victims and prosecution of traffickers ….” (§161 of the judgment). Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The main developments with regard to the domestic investigations carried out in both respondent states may be summarised as follows. 1) State of progress of domestic investigations • Information provided by the Cypriot authorities: Prior to the European Court’s judgment, the Cypriot Council of Ministers appointed an independent committee headed by the President of the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints Against the Police to investigate Ms Rantseva’s death, including the question of whether there was any link between her death and allegations of trafficking. The independent investigators have taken testimony and evidence from various persons in Cyprus. A trip to Russia is being organised to collect evidence and testimony from various people there, a request for assistance by the Russian authorities having been sought by a letter dated 02/07/2010. On 30/08/2010 the Russian authorities asked for additional information concerning the request of the Cypriot authorities. On 13/10/2010 the investigators prepared an amended request for assistance. In the amended request they included the additional information requested by the Russian authorities, specifying whether the persons sought to be interrogated were considered as suspects, defendants or witnesses. The investigators indicated that they would like to visit Russia for the purposes of receiving testimonies sometime between 15-30 November 2010. The Ministry of Justice sent the above request for assistance on 29 October 2010. The Cypriot authorities are currently awaiting a reply from the Russian authorities. • Information provided by the Russian authorities: In the meantime the Russian authorities opened a single criminal investigation into the Ms Rantseva’s death and in the framework of this investigation are examining the allegations of trafficking, including the circumstances of Ms Rantseva’s recruitment. Thus, investigative activities are under way in respect of the staff of the tour operator which recruited Ms Rantseva, and in respect of the other former clients of this operator; her friends have been questioned. Exhumation has taken place and forensic expert examination is under way. Ms Rantseva’s parents have been granted the status of victims. On 19/05/2010 the Russian authorities requested legal assistance from the Cypriot authorities, for interrogation of certain witnesses. On 1/09/2010 the Cypriot authorities replied that they will provide all the required information, but only once the Cypriot investigators complete their investigation, including collection of evidence in Russia pursuant to the Cypriot authorities’ request for legal assistance. • Information is awaited on the progress of the domestic investigations, including progress of co-operation between the Cypriot and Russian authorities, the importance of which was emphasised at the 1092nd meeting so as to guarantee a proper enquiry making it possible to identify and punish those responsible. 2) Applicant’s submission: On 2/08/2010 the applicant’s lawyer presented a communication with regard to individual measures required by the judgment (see DH-DD(2010)372). He noted, inter alia, that the Russian authorities have only opened an investigation into the death of Ms Rantseva, but have not decided to initiate criminal proceedings concerning her alleged trafficking. The applicant alleges that the sole concrete action taken during this investigation was the exhumation of Ms Rantseva – despite the objections of her parents. As to the Cyprus authorities, they informed the applicant of their intention to visit Russia to gather evidence. The applicant has no other information on the criminal proceedings in Cyprus, despite the assurances from the Cypriot authorities concerning co-operation and promises to inform him. On 5/08/2010 the applicant’s lawyer’s communication was transmitted to the Cypriot and Russian authorities for comments. General measures: At the 1092nd meeting (September 2010), both states provided extensive information on general measures taken or envisaged to comply with the judgment. This comprehensive information is currently being assessed. The most important developments which have taken place in both states since the events described in the judgment are indicated below. • Information provided by the Cypriot authorities: The Cypriot authorities set out a number of general measures in their Action plan (see DH-DD(2010)376E). At their 1092nd meeting (September 2010), the Deputies welcomed the information presented by the Cypriot authorities and in particular the confirmation that the system of “artiste” visas has been abolished. In addition, in 2007 a new law was enacted, Law L.87(I)2007) revising the legal framework governing the special protection of victims of trafficking and exploitation and related issues (see Section 4. of the Action Plan. There also appears to be a number of new measures concerning immigration policy and measures in respect of police training and awareness. At the same meeting, the Deputies noted that the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) will visit Cyprus this autumn, with a view to the adoption of their report on Cyprus in the first quarter of 2011. • Information provided by the Russian authorities: The Russian authorities provided information on a number of general measures (see DH-DD(2010)411E). They referred in particular to two amendments to the Criminal Code, both introduced subsequent to the events described in the judgment. The first (December 2003) criminalising the trade in human beings and use of slave labour, and the second (December 2006) allowing investigators to open a criminal case if an offence had been committed against a Russian national outside Russia. They also referred to other measures to prevent human trafficking, including measures on special protection of victims and witnesses. At their 1092nd meeting, the Deputies took note with interest of the information provided by the Russian authorities on the existing national mechanisms to prevent and to combat trafficking in human beings. The Deputies, 1.             took note of the information provided by the Cypriot and Russian authorities on the progress of the domestic investigations carried out by both states; 2.             stressed again the evident importance of close co-operation between Cypriot and Russian authorities in this respect with a view to ensuring that an effective investigation is carried out to identify and punish those responsible; 3.             encouraged the Cypriot and Russian authorities to continue their co-operation in this respect; 4.             emphasised the importance of ensuring that the applicant is informed of all developments in the domestic investigations and in a position to exercise any rights he may have in this respect; 5.             decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided by the authorities of both states on the progress of domestic investigations and in the light of the assessment of general measures.

25965/04     Rantsev, arrêt du 07/01/2010, définitif le 10/05/2010 DH-DD(2010)376E (Plan d’action Chypre); DH‑DD(2010)411E (Informations fournies par la Fédération de Russie) L’affaire concerne le trafic d’êtres humains subi par la fille du requérant, de la Fédération de Russie à Chypre, et son décès intervenu par la suite à Chypre. La Cour européenne a estimé que les autorités chypriotes avaient manqué à leur obligation de conduire une enquête effective sur le décès de la fille du requérant, enquête qui aurait dû comprendre une évaluation des allégations de trafic d’êtres humains (violation de l’article 2). Elle a en outre conclu à la détention illégale et arbitraire de la requérante par les autorités chypriotes (violation de l’article 5§1). Sur la question du trafic et de la l’exploitation d’êtres humains, la Cour a conclu d’une part que la législation chypriote n’avait pas offert de cadre législatif et administratif approprié pour protéger la fille du requérant et que les autorités chypriotes n’avaient pas pris de mesures appropriées dans le cas d’espèce, et d’autre part que les autorités russes avaient manqué à leur obligation positive d’enquêter sur les allégations de trafic dans cette affaire (violations de l’article 4). La traite et l’exploitation d’êtres humains La Cour européenne a indiqué que la traite d’êtres humains portait indubitablement atteinte à la dignité humaine et aux libertés fondamentales de ses victimes, et ne pouvait être considérée comme compatible avec la notion de société démocratique et les valeurs contenues dans la Convention. La Cour a par conséquent conclu que le trafic au sens de l’article 4a de la Convention du Conseil de l'Europe sur la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains (STCE n° 197) relevait du champ d’application de l’article 4 de la Convention européenne (§82). Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour européenne a relevé que le trafic d’êtres humains, en tant que phénomène global, avait augmenté de manière significative ces dernières années. La Cour s’est référée à un certain nombre d’instruments internationaux et européens, en particulier au Protocole de Palerme des Nations Unies de 2000, et à la Convention de 2005 précitée du Conseil de l’Europe, démontrant la reconnaissance croissante au niveau international de la prédominance du trafic et de la nécessité de le combattre (§278). Le rapport explicatif de la Convention de 2005 indique en ses paragraphes 3 et 4 : « La traite des êtres humains, parce qu’elle prend au piège ses victimes, est la forme moderne du commerce mondial des esclaves. Les êtres humains sont considérés comme des marchandises à acheter et à vendre, que l'on force à travailler […] pour des salaires de misère voire pour rien du tout. Si l’on veut qu’elle soit efficace, la stratégie de lutte contre la traite des êtres humains doit être fondée sur une approche multidisciplinaire qui passe à la fois par la prévention, la protection des droits de la personne humaine des victimes et la poursuite des trafiquants [..] (§161 de l’arrêt). Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral. Les principaux développements concernant les enquêtes internes conduites au sein des deux Etats défendeurs peuvent être résumés ainsi : 1) Etat d’avancement des enquêtes internes • Informations fournies par les autorités chypriotes : Avant le prononcé de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, le Conseil des Ministres chypriote a nommé un comité indépendant, présidé par le Président de l’autorité indépendante chargé d’enquêter sur les allégations et plaintes à l’encontre de la police, pour enquêter sur le décès de Mme Rantseva y compris sur la question de savoir s’il existait un lien entre son décès et les allégations de trafic d’êtres humains. Les enquêteurs indépendants ont recueilli des témoignages et des preuves de plusieurs personnes à Chypre. Un voyage en Fédération de Russie est en cours d’organisation afin de recueillir preuves et témoignages d’autres personnes sur place. A cet égard, une demande d’assistance a été adressée le 02/07/2010 aux autorités russes. Le 30/08/2010 les autorités russes ont demandé des informations complémentaires concernant la demande des autorités chypriotes. Le 13/10/2010, les enquêteurs ont préparé une demande d’assistance révisée. Dans cette demande révisée, ils ont inclus les informations complémentaires demandées par les autorités russes, précisant si les personnes qu’ils avaient l’intention d’interroger étaient considérées comme des suspects, défendeurs ou témoins. Les enquêteurs ont indiqué qu’ils souhaitaient se rendre en Fédération de Russie aux fins de recueillir ces témoignages entre le 15 et le 30/11/2010. Le Ministère de la Justice a adressé cette demande le 29/10/2010. Les autorités chypriotes attendent une réponse des autorités russes. • Informations fournies par les autorités russes : Dans l’intervalle, les autorités russes ont ouvert une seule enquête pénale sur le décès de Mme Rantseva, et examinent, dans le cadre de cette enquête, les allégations de trafic d’êtres humains, y compris les circonstances du recrutement de Mme Rantseva. Ainsi, des enquêtes sont en cours sur le personnel du tour opérateur qui a recruté Mme Rantseva et au titre de ses autres anciens clients. Les amis de la victime ont été questionnés. Le corps a été exhumé et un examen médico-légal est en cours. Les parents de Mme Rantseva se sont vus reconnaître le statut de victime. Le 19/05/2010, les autorités russes ont adressé une demande d’entraide judiciaire aux autorités chypriotes en vue d’interroger des témoins. Le 01/09/2010, les autorités cypriotes ont répondu qu’elles fourniraient toutes les informations requises, y compris les éléments de preuve recueillis en Fédération de Russie conformément à la demande d’entraide judiciaire des autorités chypriotes, mais seulement une fois que les enquêteurs chypriotes auront terminé leur enquête. • Des informations sont attendues sur l’état d’avancement des enquêtes internes, y compris s’agissant de la coopération entre les autorités chypriotes et russes dont l’importance a été soulignée par le Comité des Ministres lors de sa 1092e réunion (septembre) en vue de garantir une enquête efficace pour identifier et sanctionner les responsables. .2) Soumission de la partie requérante : Le 02/08/2010, l’avocat du requérant a présenté une communication concernant les mesures individuelles requises par l’arrêt (voir DH-DD(2010)372. Il a noté en particulier que les autorités russes n’avaient ouvert qu’une enquête sur le décès de Mme Rantseva et n’avait pas décidé d’ouvrir d’enquête pénale sur les allégations de trafic d’êtres humains. Selon le requérant, le seul acte concret accompli dans le cadre de cette enquête aurait été l'exhumation de Mme Rantseva, et ceci contre les objections de ses parents. Les autorités chypriotes ont informé le requérant de leur intention de se rendre en Fédération de Russie pour y recueillir des preuves. Le requérant ne dispose pas d’autre information sur l’enquête pénale à Chypre, en dépit des assurances données par les autorités chypriotes concernant la coopération et les promesses de l’informer. Le 05/08/2010, la communication de l’avocat du requérant a été transmise aux autorités chypriotes et russes pour commentaires. Mesures de caractère général : Lors de la 1092e réunion, les deux délégations ont fourni des informations très détaillées sur les mesures générales, prises ou en cours d’adoption. Ces informations d’envergure sont en cours d’évaluation. Les plus importants développements intervenus au sein des deux Etats, après les événements décrits dans l’arrêt, sont les suivants : • Informations fournies par les autorités chypriotes : Les autorités chypriotes ont mis en place un certain nombre de mesures générales énoncées dans leur plan d’action (voir DH-DD(2010)376E). Lors de la 1092e réunion, le Comité s’est félicité des informations présentées par les autorités chypriotes et en particulier de la confirmation de la suppression du système des visas « d’artistes ». En outre, en 2007 une loi a été adoptée (loi L.87(I)2007) révisant le cadre juridique régissant la protection spéciale des personnes victimes de trafic d’êtres humains et d’exploitation, et des questions liées (voir la section 4 du plan d’action ). D’autres nouvelles mesures ont été énoncées concernant la politique d’immigration et des mesures au titre de la formation et de la sensibilisation de la police. Lors de la 1092e réunion, les Délégués ont noté que le Groupe d’experts sur la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains (GRETA) se rendrait à Chypre cet automne de manière à ce que son rapport sur ce pays soit adopté au premier trimestre de 2011. • Informations fournies par les autorités russes : Les autorités russes ont fourni des informations sur un certain nombre de mesures générales (voir DH-DD(2010)411E). Elles se sont référées en particulier à deux amendements au Code pénal, tous deux introduits après les événements décrits dans l’arrêt. Le premier (adopté en décembre 2003) criminalise le trafic d’être humains et le recours à la main d’œuvre esclave, et le second (introduit en décembre 2006) permet aux enquêteurs d’ouvrir une enquête pénale lorsqu’une infraction a été commise à l’étranger à l’encontre d’un ressortissant russe. Les autorités se sont également référées à d’autres mesures visant à prévenir le trafic d’êtres humains, y compris des mesures sur la protection spéciale des victimes et des témoins. Lors de la 1092e réunion, les Délégués ont pris note avec intérêt des informations communiquées par les autorités russes sur les mécanismes nationaux qui existent pour prévenir et combattre la traite des êtres humains. Les Délégués, 1.             prennent note des informations fournies par les autorités chypriotes et russes sur l’état d’avancement des investigations internes menées par les deux Etats ; 2.             soulignent à nouveau l’importance manifeste d’une coopération étroite entre les autorités chypriotes et russes à cet égard pour garantir qu’une enquête effective soit menée à bien en vue d’identifier et de punir les responsables ; 3.             encouragent les autorités chypriotes et russes à continuer leur coopération en la matière ; 4.             soulignent l’importance d’assurer que le requérant soit informé de tous les développements des enquêtes internes et soit en mesure d’exercer tous les droits qu’il pourrait avoir à ce titre ; 5.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH) à la lumière des informations complémentaires à fournir par les autorités des deux Etats sur l’état d’avancement des investigations internes et à la lumière d’une évaluation des mesures générales.

- 27 cases against Cyprus / 27 affaires contre Chypre

4268/04            Panovits, judgment of 11/12/2008, final on 11/03/2009

This case concerns three separate violations of the applicant's right to a fair trial, following his arrest in 2001 on suspicion of murder and robbery, due to the lack of legal assistance during police questioning; the use of the applicant's confession obtained under police questioning at trial and the trial court's confrontation with the applicant's lawyer during the trial (two violations of Article 6§1 and a violation of Article 6§3c in conjunction with Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that as the applicant was a minor and not assisted by a legal guardian, his questioning by the police should have been done with due regard to his vulnerability. Therefore, “The lack of provision of sufficient information on the applicant's right to consult a lawyer … constituted a breach of his defence rights.” (§73) (violation of Article 6§3c in conjunction with 6§1).

The Court also found that the use in trial of the applicant's confession obtained in such circumstances irreparably undermined his rights of defence (§86) (violation of Article 6§1).

Finally, with regard to the trial court's confrontation with the applicant's defence lawyer, Mr Kyprianou, the European Court referred to its judgment in the case he had himself brought before it, Kyprianou against Cyprus (Application No. 73797/01) (1072nd meeting, December 2009), which related to the same incident. During the proceedings the trial court engaged in various disagreements with the applicant's lawyer, sentencing him to 5 days' imprisonment for contempt of court while he was conducting the defence. The European Court found that the trial court had failed to satisfy the requirements of subjective impartiality as the judges' personal conduct demonstrated that they did not succeed in detaching themselves sufficiently from the situation. Further, their interference with the conduct of the defence through the contempt proceedings and subsequent imprisonment of the applicant's lawyer was disproportionate. The trial court's “handling of the confrontation … rendered the trial unfair” (§101) (violation of Article 6§1)

Individual measures: The applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction.

Following the trial, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to concurrent terms of 6 and 14 years in Nicosia Central Prison. The European Court stated that the applicant should “be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of [Article 6] not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested” (§103 of the judgment).

The applicant was released, prior to the European Court's judgment, on 04/11/2007, due to remission for good conduct under the relevant prison regulations. According to the authorities, if the applicant had not been released by the time of the judgment, he could have been released on the advice of the Attorney General to the President of the Republic asking him to release the applicant immediately or commute his sentence under Article 153.4 of the Constitution. 

As identified in the joint concurring opinion of Judges Spielmann and Jebens, there is currently no legislative provision in Cyprus setting out the procedure for reopening of domestic proceedings found to be unfair by the European Court. On 01/06/2009 the applicant's lawyer confirmed that as the applicant had been released.

In January 2010, the Cypriot authorities stated that the possibility of adopting new legislation providing re-opening of domestic proceedings following a finding by the European Court of a violation of the Convention is currently being analysed by the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent’s Office.

• Information provided by Cypriot authorities (28/09/2010):  The Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent’s Office, (Law Office of the Attorney-General) is preparing a bill on re-opening/re-examination in the light of a study and assessment of legislative/administrative arrangements which exist in other Council of Europe states, and the extent to which such arrangements can be accommodated in the domestic system, taking into account for this purpose the views of the various actors involved at domestic level. The Cypriot authorities estimate that the bill should be laid before the legislature by the end of January 2011.

• Information is awaited as to the content and progress of this bill. In this context, bilateral contacts with the applicant are under way to clarify his position in relation to a possible re-opening of the proceedings.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 6§3c in conjunction with Article 6§1: Under the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law, arrested persons are entitled to the services of a lawyer, and shall be given reasonable facilities for obtaining legal advice (§§ 38 and 43 of the judgment). The European Court considered that given the applicant's vulnerability as a minor subject to questioning without his legal guardian, the authorities did not provide sufficient information on the applicant's right to consult a lawyer. The Court noted that “the passive approach adopted by the authorities in the present circumstances was clearly not sufficient to fulfil their positive obligation to furnish the applicant with the necessary information enabling him to access legal representation” (§72 of the judgment). The Court also noted that the authorities must take steps to “ensure that the accused minor has a broad understanding of the nature of the investigation, of what is at stake for him or her, including the significance of any penalty which may be imposed as well as of his rights of defence and, in particular, of his right to remain silent” (§67 of the judgment).

For details of the 2005 Law (Law 163(I)/2005) which lays out the rights of persons arrested and detained, see the public notes of the 1078th meeting (March 2010).

• Information provided by Cypriot authorities (28/09/2010): 

Practical application of Law 163(I)/2005: Law 163(I)/2005 (The Rights of Persons Arrested and Detained Law, 2005) forms part of the curriculum for police basic training (including special constables) at the Police Academy. They are taught and trained in all the provisions of the Law including those respecting the rights of minors and their relatives under the Law. The subjects taught include:

(a) places of detention for arrested minors (under the age of 18) and arrested women, (sections 20-21);

(b) right to communicate with a lawyer and relatives (sections 3-9 and 11);

(c) interrogation of the arrestee in the presence of his/her lawyer (section 10);

(d) right of the arrested to have interviews with his lawyer (section 12, 14);

(e) right to send and receive letters (section 15);

(f) right to meet relatives (section 16-18);

(g) treatment and conditions of detention (section 19);

(h) pregnancy and breastfeeding while under arrest (section 22);

(i) right to medical examination (sections 23-28);

(j) list of rights (section 29);

(k) illegal arrest as a criminal offence (section 31);

(l) failure to inform the arrestee of the reasons for arrest as a criminal offence (section 32);

(m) criminal offences due to violation of rights (section 33);

(n) actionable right to compensation (section 36). 

Teaching in the Law’s provisions includes participation in patrol incidents in which the Law’s provisions are applied in practice. 

A list of the rights afforded by the Law (section 29) is handed personally to each arrestee, before being taken to a cell, and he/she signs to the effect that the list was handed to him/her. In addition, a list of the rights protect under the Law rights is displayed in a conspicuous place accessible to detainees in Greek and Turkish and in translations into English, French, Russian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Iranian, and Arabic.

Specific treatment of minors:  Police officers are thus familiar with the Law’s provisions including those respecting minors, (under the age of 18) and implement them. Testimony is taken in the presence of the minor’s parents or guardian or of an officer of the Social Welfare Department. Furthermore it is the practice of the police, respecting persons under the age of 16, to inform the Social Welfare Department once an investigation is over and before the file is transmitted to the Attorney-General for decision as to whether to prosecute or not, to prepare a socioeconomic report on the minor and his/her family. Before the file is so transmitted to the Attorney-General it is studied by a committee comprising a representative of the police and the Social Welfare Department which recommends to the Attorney-General on whether or not the minor should be prosecuted.

• Information would be appreciated including data on the effect of these measures, for example, current statistics on the number of similar cases to show whether the measures taken are of a nature to prevent similar violations.

2) Violation of Article 6§1 in relation to the trial court's confrontation with the applicant's defence lawyer: This issue is raised in the Kyprianou case (73797/01, Section 4.1).

            3) Publication: The European Court’s judgment was translated and published in the Cyprus Law Journal, 2009, second issue, p.136.

31811/04           Michael Theodossiou LtD, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

This case concerns the excessive length of compensation proceedings for expropriation of the applicant’s property which began in February 1995 (around 11 years, 7 months before two degrees of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

It also concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions due to the excessive delay between service of an compulsory acquisition order (1972) and the actual payment of compensation (1995) (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court considered that the domestic legal provision, under which the valuation of expropriated property should correspond to the market value at the date of service of the compulsory acquisition order, was not in principle contrary to its jurisprudence on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (§81 of the judgment). However, in this case the amount paid in compensation 23 years after publication of the order, was approximately one tenth of the market value of the property. Noting that the applicable law made no provision for exceptions in cases of excessively lengthy compensation proceedings, the Court found that in such circumstances the amount of compensation did not correspond to the value of the property at issue.

Individual Measures: Aside from just satisfaction, the individual measures are linked to the general measures in that legislation has to be in place to provide a remedy making it possible to challenge excessive length of proceedings.

• Information provided by the Cypriot authorities on 29/09/2010: In finding a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement, the European Court took into account not only the period during which the proceedings were pending before domestic courts but also that following the final judgment until payment of the compensation awarded. It is to be noted in this respect that domestic remedies have been set up by recent legislation for violation of the “reasonable time” requirement (Law 2(I)/2010 with effect on 5.2.010) which also cover the stage following the domestic judgment until its enforcement (sections 5(1) and 11(e) of the Law).

The Article 41 just satisfaction judgment was reserved by the Court and is still awaited.

• Assessment: the individual measures appear linked to the general measures.

General Measures: 

            1) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:

Legislative reform: Advice was given, in a letter from the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent’s Office to the Ministry of Interior, the Land Registry Director, and the Land Officer of Limassol District where the property was situated - that: “In view of the reasoning of the judgment which is analysed above the only way for complying is the amendment of legislation, so that in the context of determining the amount of payable compensation courts are afforded the possibility of flexibility in the matter, for the purpose of safeguarding the right to property where the circumstances of the case demand it.”  The bill amending the legislation will be prepared by the Human Rights Sector and will be transmitted to the authorities for their views. Following this consultation (at the end of March 2011) the bill will be submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval, following which it will be laid before the legislature.

Reform of practice: Following the above advice, the Director of the Land Registry sent a circular to all District Land Officers (dated 29/10/2010), stating that, as a first step to prevent future violations of the Convention, pursuant to the Court’s judgment the following practices would apply:

(i) every valuer would henceforth be duty-bound to prepare duly reasoned valuation reports for all properties compulsorily acquired in which no agreement was reached on the payable amount within 6 months from the date of an offer of compensation, for the purpose of filing proceedings with the courts for determining  the amounts payable; and

(ii) immediate preparation of valuation reports respecting pending compulsory acquisitions, and their submission to the Director in order to process with the Attorney-General’s Office for filing court proceedings. 

Directions were also given in the circular that as soon as a judgment is given determining the amount of compensation, its payment must be given direct priority and for this purpose necessary approvals must be obtained in advance from the Ministry of Finance. The circular urged as an absolute necessity the full and faithful compliance with its contents.

            2) Article 6§1: A new domestic remedy has been created by recent legislation to address the question of excessive length of civil proceedings (Law 2(I)/2010 with effect from 5/02/2010), which also covers the stage following the domestic judgment until its enforcement (sections 5(1) and 11(e) of the Law) (see the Gregoriou group, 62242/00, Section 4.2).

            3) Publication and dissemination: By letter dated 1/06/2009 explaining the circumstances of the case and  the reasoning for the Court’s findings, the judgment was sent out to the President of the Cyprus Bar Association, and the Presidents of the Parliamentary Committees for Human Rights, Legal Affairs, and Internal Affairs (the latter examines legislation tabled by the government, respecting amendments to the Compulsory Acquisition Law which was the Law under which compensation was paid for the relevant compulsory acquisition of applicants’ property). By separate letter to the same effect, the judgment was also transmitted to the Supreme Court Registrar so that courts might be informed.

The judgment, accompanied by a note of the same content was circulated on 5/06/2010 to all lawyers at the Attorney-General’s Law Office; they act as counsel for the Republic in civil and administrative court cases including those concerned with the determination of compensation for compulsory acquisitions. By separate letter of the same date the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent’s Office also transmitted the judgment to the Ministry concerned and authorities involved in the compulsory acquisition process of applicants’ property, explaining the judgment in the light of the circumstances of the case and advising on the measures that should be adopted to prevent future similar violations.

Lastly, the judgment was posted in English and in Greek translation on the Legal Service web-site (Human Rights Sector). The Greek translation was also published in the 3rd Issue -2009 of the Cyprus Law Journal, covering the period from September to December 2009; the letter by the Human Rights Sector to the President of the Cyprus Bar Association explaining the judgment was also published as an article in the same issue of the Cyprus Law Journal.

• Further information is awaited concerning the progress and, importantly, content of the Bill amending legislation that will provide judges with a flexible discretion when determining compensation awards for compulsory acquisition. It would be useful to have evidence of a positive effect of the measures taken to reform practice concerning compulsory acquisitions; statistics outlining the current numbers of similar cases and average length of delayed proceedings.

                        - 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 provided by Cypriot authorities (29/09/2010): In the Shacolas case the appeal proceedings (No.314/05) have not been concluded, but a complaint by any of the parties respecting their length may be made under the new Law whilst the proceedings are pending (or after they are concluded) since its provisions also apply respecting cases which were pending at any stage before it came into force (for more detail on the new law see “General measures” below).

• Assessment : as the new law provides that any individual who is or was involved in proceedings before the Cypriot courts that may have suffered delay, has one year following the entry into force of the law to bring a complaint, the individual measures appear linked to the general measures.

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 group of Supreme Court judges to which the Full Bench of the Supreme Court assigned the revision of the Civil Procedure Rules to simply them and expedite proceedings, has completed its work and the draft text of the revised Rules submitted to the Full Bench for discussion and exchange of views.

-           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.

-           The Budget for 2010 (approved by the legislature on 01/1/2010) makes provision for six additional judges at district courts. The posts were filled in early January 2010 and the six new judges have been appointed, i.e. four District Court judges, a Senior District Court Judge, and a District Court President.

Proposed measures:

-           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;

-           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 effect of measures taken; that is to say, information on recent trends concerning excessive length of judicial proceedings – the current average length of delayed cases – would be helpful.  Moreover, information on the progress of the institution of the digital system, and on the progress of the draft text on the Civil Procedure Rules submitted to the Supreme Court, would also be welcome.

            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.  For a detailed analysis of the new law see the admissibility decision of the European Court in Panayi against Cyprus (46370/09, 23/09/2010).

In this decision the European Court stated that “ [it] is satisfied, in view of the legislative provisions as they stand, that the aggregate of remedies provided by Law 2(I)/2010 in cases of excessively long proceedings in civil and administrative cases that have been concluded or are pending at first instance or on appeal is effective in the sense that the remedies are in principle capable of both 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”. The Court dismissed the application as inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the facts occurred before the remedy was in place and as such, under s.5(2) of the Law, the remedy had been available to the applicant for a year from the date of the entry into force of the Law.  It can be taken from this decision, therefore, that the remedy instituted by the Cypriot authorities is considered effective in principle.

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 provided by Cypriot authorities on 29/09/2010:

-           The new Law setting up remedies for length proceedings came into force quite recently (05/02/2010) and the Cypriot authorities have confirmed that it is too early to have domestic case-law on its implementation. This is likely to take some time, considering also that a large number of cases seeking compensation against the Republic are settled.

-           In a case concerning a complaint of violation respecting the length of pending domestic civil proceedings, a hearing under the new Law was fixed for 27/10/2010 (in the meantime the parties are to make written submissions).

• Assessment: The new Law has been accepted by the European Court as effective in principle.

• Information is now awaited, with examples of domestic case-law, proving its effectiveness in practice.

- 2 cases against the Czech Republic / 2 affaires contre la République tchèque

57325/00    D.H. and others, judgment of 13/11/2007 - Grand Chamber CM/Inf/DH(2010)47 The case concerns discrimination against the applicants, who are Roma, in that their placement in special schools intended for children with mental disabilities lacked objective and reasonable justification (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1). Individual measures: Education in the Czech Republic is compulsory for all children from six to fifteen. The applicants are all older than fifteen and therefore are no longer in the compulsory schooling system. • Assessment: Consequently, no individual measures are required. General measures: In April 2009 the Czech authorities submitted a wide-ranging action plan, updated in 2009 and early 2010. The measures directly relevant to the judgment are largely set out in the National Action Plan on Inclusive Education (the "NAPIV"). The goal of the NAPIV is to end the persisting practice of segregating of Roma pupils; its "Preparatory Phase" (2010-2013) is being implemented. For a detailed summary of the Action plan see the notes in this case presented to the Committee of Ministers at their 1086th meeting (June 2010). • An assessment of the Action plan will be presented in a separate memorandum. The Deputies: 1.             noted with satisfaction that the Czech authorities have confirmed that the National Action Plan on Inclusive Education (the "NAPIV") setting out the key measures proposed by the Czech authorities to execute the judgment is now definitively adopted and its implementation has begun; 2.             encouraged the Czech authorities to follow the implementation of the NAPIV without delay, particularly concerning measures to address the situation of pupils improperly placed in practical schools (zakladni skoly prakticke) to ensure that they are able to transfer to the mainstream education system; 3.             decided to declassify the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)47; 4.             invited the Czech authorities to provide the Committee with further information on the outstanding issues identified in Memorandum and on progress achieved in the implementation of the Action plan; 5.             decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on general measures.

57325/00     D.H. et autres, arrêt du 13/11/2007 - Grande Chambre CM/Inf/DH(2010)47 L’affaire concerne un cas de discrimination à l’encontre des requérants roms dans la mesure où leur affectation dans des écoles spéciales destinées à des enfants handicapés mentaux ne répondait pas à une justification objective et raisonnable (violation de l’article 14 combiné à l’article 2 du Protocole n° 1). Mesures de caractère individuel : en République tchèque, l’éducation est obligatoire pour tous les enfants âgés de six à quinze ans. Les requérants ont tous plus de quinze ans et ne relèvent donc plus du système scolaire obligatoire. • Evaluation : En conséquence, aucune mesure individuelle n’est nécessaire. Mesures de caractère général : En avril 2009, les autorités tchèques ont soumis un plan d’action de grande envergure, mis à jour en 2009 et au début de 2010. Les mesures qui sont liées directement à l’arrêt sont pour l’essentiel définies dans le Plan d’action national d’éducation intégrée. Ce plan vise à faire cesser la pratique persistante de séparer les élèves roms. Sa « phase préparatoire » (2010 – 2013) est en cours de mise en œuvre. Pour un résumé détaillé du Plan d’action, voir les notes sur l’affaire présentées lors de la 1086e réunion (juin 2010). • Le Plan d’action sera évalué dans un mémorandum distinct. Les Délégués, 1.             notent avec satisfaction que les autorités tchèques ont confirmé que le Plan d'action national d'éducation intégrée (« NAPIV »), comprenant l’essentiel des mesures proposées par les autorités tchèques en exécution du présent arrêt, est maintenant définitivement adopté et que sa mise en œuvre a commencé ; 2.             encouragent les autorités tchèques à poursuivre la mise en œuvre du NAPIV sans délai, en particulier s’agissant des mesures visant la situation des élèves indûment placés dans les écoles pratiques (zakladni skoly prakticke) afin d’assurer qu’ils aient la possibilité d’être transférés vers le système éducatif ordinaire ; 3.             décident de déclassifier le Mémorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)47 ; 4.             invitent les autorités tchèques à fournir au Comité des informations complémentaires sur les questions en suspens identifiées dans ce Mémorandum et sur les progrès accomplis dans la mise en œuvre du plan d’action ; 5.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point lors de leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière d'informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures générales.

32921/03+         Kohlhofer et Minarik, arrêt du 15/10/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010

L’affaire concerne la violation du droit d’accès des requérants à un tribunal, ces derniers n’ayant pas la faculté, en tant qu’actionnaires minoritaires d’une société, de contester en justice une résolution de liquidation une fois celle-ci inscrite au registre du commerce, (violation de l'article 6§1).

Un amendement de 2001 au Code du commerce a conféré aux actionnaires d’une société par actions le pouvoir de liquider la société et de transférer l’ensemble de ses actifs à tout actionnaire possédant plus de 90 % des parts. Les actionnaires minoritaires devaient quant à eux être indemnisés. Les requérants sont d’anciens actionnaires minoritaires dans des sociétés qui ont fait l’objet de résolutions de ce type adoptées en assemblée générale. Ils ont tenté de contester les résolutions en cause devant les juridictions en invoquant certaines irrégularités, mais dans chacun des cas leurs demandes ont été rejetées au motif que le Code du commerce ne permettait pas aux juridictions ordinaires de contrôler la légalité des résolutions une fois les transferts inscrits au registre du commerce. Ils n’avaient pas non plus qualité pour participer aux procédures devant les organes judiciaires chargés de la gestion du registre du commerce, ces organes, bien qu’informés des procédures pendantes devant les juridictions, n’ont pas tenu d’audience ni suspendu le processus d’inscription.

Selon la Cour européenne, il n’a pas été établi que la limitation du droit d’accès des requérants à un tribunal, prévue par le droit interne, était proportionnée au but légitime consistant à favoriser la stabilité du monde des affaires en prévenant la contestation abusive des résolutions.

- 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).

- 2 cases against Estonia / 2 affaires 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.

10664/05           Mikolenko, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

This case concerns the excessive length of detention of the applicant in a deportation centre, (i.e. more than 3 years and 11 months) during expulsion proceedings.

The European Court, recalling that privation of liberty is justified under Article 5 only for as long as deportation proceedings are being conducted, and that if such proceedings are not being prosecuted with due diligence, such detention is no longer justified, considered that in this case the detention of applicant was not valid for the whole period, due to the domestic authorities’ failure to conduct proceedings with due diligence. The Court noted in particular that it had been provided with no information as to whether any steps with a view to applicant’s deportation had been taken between August 2004 and March 2006 (violation of Article 5§1).

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

• Information provided by the Estonian authorities (18/02/2010): By decision of the Tallinn Administrative Court the applicant was released from prison on 18/10/2007. He has since been at liberty.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Estonian authorities (18/02/2010): The judgment has been translated into Estonian, placed on the website of the Council of Europe Information Office in Tallinn (www.coe.ee) and distributed to all authorities concerned. In the view of the Estonian authorities, as the case would appear as an isolated one, there is no need for specific legislative or regulatory action.

• The information provided by the authorities is being assessed.

- 56 cases against Finland / 56 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.

3514/02            Eerikäinen and others, judgment of 10/02/2009, final on 13/03/2009

This case concerns violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. A civil court found that the applicants, a freelance journalist, the former editor-in-chief (now deceased) of a publishing company and the publishing company, 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 businesswoman 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”. The European Court also concluded that all the sanctions imposed on the applicants were disproportionate, and that the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake (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 further 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 the domestic judiciary’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 been sent out to the Supreme Court, as well as to the Constitutional Committee of the Parliament, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Helsinki District Court, the Helsinki Court of Appeal and the Ministry of Justice.

• Information is awaited on general measures taken or envisaged.  

13079/03           Ruotsalainen, judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 16/09/2009[22]

22635/04           Vilén, judgment of 17/02/2009, final on 17/05/2009

The case concerns the unfairness of insurance proceedings with regard to sickness benefits of the applicant, who was denied the opportunity to comment on several medical opinions included in his case file between 2002 and 2003. The European Court concluded that the applicant had therefore not been able to participate properly in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The facts of the case occurred after the adoption and publication of the K.P. judgment (No. 31764/96, judgment of 31/05/2001, closed by the Resolution ResDH(2006)59, adopted on 02/11/2006), and similar cases which have since been submitted to the Committee of Ministers seem to indicate that the problem persists in judicial practice.

• Information provided by the Finnish authorities (08/01/2010): The judgment has been published and sent out.

• Assessment: This information cannot be considered as an action plan or action report. An action plan/action report is still awaited from the authorities.

13566/06          Pietiläinen Kari-Pekka, judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 18/11/2009

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of the defence and the requirements of a fair trial in that in 2005 the Helsinki Appeal Court discontinued his appeal due to his failure to appear, although he was represented by counsel (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3(c).

The European Court considered that the Helsinki Appeal Court had a duty to allow the applicant’s counsel to defend him, even in his absence. The discontinuance of the applicant’s case constituted a particularly rigid and severe sanction, particularly in view of the rights of the defence and the requirements of a fair trial.

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 other than on the payment of just satisfaction.

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.

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 other than on the payment of just satisfaction.

43151/02           Suuripää, judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010[23]

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 other that on the payment of just satisfaction.

- 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).

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.

The authorities provided information on 30/06/2010.

• Assessment: The information provided by the authorities cannot be considered as an action plan or action report. An action plan/action report is still awaited.

2) Length of the proceedings: See the Kangasluoma group (48339/99) (Section 4.2).

                        - 43 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

39509/08           Horsti, judgment of 10/11/2009, final on 10/02/2010

26654/08           Huoltoasema Matti Eurén Oy and others, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

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

17889/07           Landgren, judgment of 10/11/2009, final on 10/02/2010

22175/06           Lappalainen, judgment of 03/11/2009, final on 03/02/2010, rectified on 23/02/2010

41585/98           Lehtinen No. 2, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006

45618/04           Lehtinen Toive No. 2, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

43160/98           Lehtinen Toive, judgment of 22/05/2007, final on 22/08/2007

34147/96           Lehtinen, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

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

16385/07           Nieminen, judgment of 03/11/2009, final on 03/02/2010, rectified on 23/02/2010

45952/08           Nousiainen, judgment of 23/02/2010, final on 23/05/2010

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

31021/06           Petroff, judgment of 03/11/2009, final on 03/02/2010, rectified on 01/03/2010

16207/05           Raita, judgment of 16/02/2010, final on 16/05/2010

23172/08           Rangdell, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

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

25597/07           Taavitsainen, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010

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: The proceedings are closed. The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

• Assessment: No other individual measure appears necessary.

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.

• Information provided by the Finnish authorities (30/066/2010): The Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament considered it important to enact the legislation and to expand its scope of application by separate amendments. The new Act provides the possibility for parties to claim compensation from the state budget when the delay in proceedings has been attributable to the authorities. The criteria for assessing whether there has been an unreasonable delay in proceedings include inter alia the case-law of the European Court on the application of Article 6.  The new Act also establishes rules for calculating the amount of compensation for lengthy proceedings.

• Assessment:Information provided by the authorities is welcome.

• Information is awaited on the possible retroactive effect of the new Act in respect of applicants having already applied to the European Court and on the finalisation of the legislative process. A copy and a translation of the relevant legislative provisions would be useful.

- 30 cases against France / 30 affaires contre la France

5608/05            Renolde, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009[24]

9375/02            Saoud, arrêt du 09/10/2007, définitif le 09/01/2008

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte portée à la vie du fils et frère des requérants, souffrant de schizophrénie, dont le décès par asphyxie en 1998 fut la conséquence directe d’un maintien au sol par des officiers de police (violation de l’article 2). La Cour européenne a estimé que les conditions de l’arrestation du requérant en particulier l’usage de la force par les policiers à cette occasion, étaient proportionnées à la violence de son comportement, y compris envers les membres de sa famille.

Toutefois, concernant les faits postérieurs à son arrestation, à savoir le maintien au sol du jeune homme par les policiers, la Cour a rappelé que, étant donné que l’intéressé se trouvait dans un rapport de dépendance par rapport aux autorités de l’Etat, celles-ci avaient une obligation positive de protéger sa vie, obligation qui n’a pas été respectée en l’espèce. En effet, bien qu’ils aient eu connaissance de la maladie du jeune homme et que celui-ci - entravé aux mains et aux pieds - ne présentait plus de danger pour autrui, les policiers l’ont maintenu au sol pendant 35 minutes, dans la position d’immobilisation ayant entraîné le décès ; par ailleurs, aucun examen médical, même superficiel, n’a été pratiqué sur lui afin de s’assurer de son état de santé. La Cour a observé que cette forme d’immobilisation (dite en « décubitus ventral ») a été identifiée comme hautement dangereuse pour la vie. Elle a déploré le fait qu’aucune directive précise n’ait été prise par les autorités françaises à l’égard de ce type de technique d’immobilisation et que, malgré la présence sur place de professionnels formés au secours, aucun soin n’ait été prodigué au requérant avant son arrêt cardiaque.

Cette affaire concerne également une atteinte au droit de l’une des requérantes à un procès équitable, en raison de l'impossibilité matérielle pour l'avocat aux Conseils, désigné tardivement pour l’assister, de déposer un mémoire ampliatif devant la Cour de Cassation (violation de l’article 6§1). Bien qu’elle se soit initialement vu refuser le bénéfice de l’aide juridictionnelle par une décision du 7/06/2001 du bureau d’aide juridictionnelle près la Cour de cassation, la requérante l’a finalement obtenue le 24/07/2001 par décision du délégué du premier président de la Cour de cassation, sur demande de nouvelle délibération déposée par la requérante. Or, lorsque l'aide juridictionnelle lui a enfin été accordée, le rapport du conseiller rapporteur avait déjà été déposé depuis plus d'un mois, soit le 22/06/2001.

L'article 590 du code de procédure pénale, qui dispose qu'aucun mémoire ne peut être joint au pourvoi après cette date, mettait un terme à la possibilité pour l’avocat aux Conseils désigné de déposer un mémoire ampliatif.

La Cour européenne releva que malgré le caractère restrictif de la possibilité pour une partie civile de se pourvoir devant la Cour de cassation, la décision d’octroyer l’aide juridictionnelle à la requérante reconnaissait implicitement l’existence de moyens sérieux de cassation et lui offrait une chance de voir son pourvoi défendu par un professionnel du droit spécialisé en la matière.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Dans cette affaire, la cause du décès ne fait pas de doute : la Cour a constaté (§97) que le maintien au sol de M. Saoud a été identifié par les experts médicaux comme étant la cause directe de son décès par asphyxie lente. La Cour a octroyé 20 000 euros aux requérants qui avaient sollicité une satisfaction équitable pour le préjudice moral subi « en raison des conditions dans lesquelles est intervenu le décès de leur fils et frère, Mohamed Saoud, et compte tenu du fait que le non-respect de l'article 6 de la Convention, en l'espèce, (…) les (a) empêché d'obtenir la condamnation pénale des responsables et de faire leur deuil » (§38).

• Informations fournies par les autorités : Le juge judiciaire a écarté toute responsabilité pénale à l’égard des policiers. Le 12/10/2000 à la suite du dépôt de plainte avec constitution de partie civile formé par la famille, le juge d’instruction a rendu une ordonnance de non-lieu, confirmée le 04/01/2001 par la Chambre d’instruction prés la Cour d’appel.

S’agissant d’une éventuelle faute disciplinaire, d’une part, les enquêtes internes menées ont conclu à l’absence de violences illégitimes commises par les policiers et d’autre part, en 1998, aucune instruction relative à la forme d’immobilisation employée à l’égard de M. Saoud n’avait été prise.

Mesures de caractère général :

1) Violation de l’article 2 : Outre les éléments décrits ci-dessus quant à l’origine de la violation, la Cour a relevé que, selon le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture (CPT), « l'utilisation de la force et/ou de moyens de contrainte susceptibles de provoquer une asphyxie posturale ne devrait constituer qu'un ultime recours et qu'une telle utilisation, dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, doit faire l'objet de lignes directrices, afin de réduire au minimum les risques pour la santé de la personne concernée » (13e rapport général d'activités du CPT (2002-2003)) (§60 de l’arrêt) et que, concernant la France en particulier, « les directives en vigueur devaient être complétées et réactualisées sur un certain nombre de points, comme par exemple, les risques d' « asphyxie posturale » (rapport rédigé à la suite de la visite à l'aéroport Roissy‑Charles de Gaulle en juin 2002) (§61 de l’arrêt). La Cour a ensuite « déplor(é) qu'aucune directive précise n'ait été prise par les autorités françaises à l'égard de ce type de technique d'immobilisation et que, malgré la présence sur place de professionnels formés au secours, aucun soin n'ait été prodigué à Mohamed Saoud avant son arrêt cardiaque » (§103).

Dans leur courrier du 30/06/2009, les autorités françaises se réfèrent aux instructions prises à la suite de cet arrêt, en date du 08/10/2008, et relatives à la méthode d’immobilisation critiquée par la Cour. Dans leur courrier du 13/11/2009, les autorités indiquent que ces instructions prescrivent aux policiers « un usage très maîtrisé de la force en rappelant les grands principes du recours à la force (discernement et proportionnalité) et en insistant sur le fait que les personnes interpellées sont placées sous la responsabilité des policiers intervenants. Plus précisément, sur l’immobilisation en cause dans l’arrêt Saoud, il est prescrit aux policiers, lorsqu’une telle immobilisation est nécessaire, de faire en sorte que la compression sur le thorax et l’abdomen soit la plus momentanée possible et qu’elle soit relâchée dès que la personne est entravée par les moyens réglementaires et adaptés. Par ailleurs, avant toute intervention périlleuse, un médecin régulateur du service des urgences doit être informé. Il lui appartiendra, le cas échéant, de décider de l’envoi d’une équipe médicale sur place. Enfin, la note précise que le recours à la force doit être acté de façon détaillée dans les comptes rendus d’intervention ».

• Des informations sont attendues sur la portée juridique et le contenu précis de ces instructions, dont une copie serait utile, sur sa diffusion et d’éventuelles formations y relatives. Des informations sont également attendues sur les autres mesures envisagées par les autorités aux fins de prévenir des violations similaires, et notamment en ce qui concerne l’absence de soins soulignée par la Cour.

2) Violation de l’article 6§1

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour éviter une violation similaire à celle constatée par la Cour, à savoir que la procédure devant la Cour de cassation n'a pas été équitable en raison de l'impossibilité matérielle pour l'avocat aux Conseils, désigné tardivement pour assister l'un des requérants, de déposer un mémoire ampliatif.

            3) Publication et diffusion : L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été publié et commenté sur le réseau Intranet du Bureau du droit européen, international et constitutionnel de la Direction des libertés publiques et des affaires juridiques du Ministère de l’Intérieur. Ce site est accessible à l’ensemble des agents de ce ministère et des services extérieurs qui lui sont rattachés (administration centrale, préfectures, fonctionnaires de police nationale).

19576/08           Daoudi, arrêt du 3/12/2009, définitif le 3/03/2010

Cette affaire concerne le risque pour le requérant, ressortissant algérien, condamné pour la préparation d’un acte de terrorisme et pour usage de faux, d'être soumis à des traitements contraires à l’article 3 de la Convention, si l'arrêté d'expulsion vers l’Algérie pris à son encontre était mis à exécution.

La Cour européenne a noté qu’il est légitime que les Etats fassent preuve d’une grande fermeté à l’égard de ceux qui contribuent à des actes de terrorisme, qu’elle ne saurait en aucun cas cautionner. Elle a toutefois souligné qu’il ressort de sources à la fois multiples, concordantes, fiables et récentes (notamment des rapports du Comité des Nations Unies contre la torture, de plusieurs organisations non gouvernementales, du Département d’Etat américain et du ministère de l’Intérieur britannique) qu’en Algérie, les personnes impliquées dans des faits de terrorisme sont arrêtées et détenues par les services de sécurité (DRS) de façon peu prévisible et sans base légale clairement établie, essentiellement afin d’être interrogées pour obtenir des renseignements, et non dans un but uniquement judiciaire. Selon ces sources, ces personnes, placées en détention sans contrôle des autorités judiciaires ni communication avec l’extérieur (avocat, médecin ou famille), peuvent être soumises à des mauvais traitements, y compris la torture. Le gouvernement n’a pas produit d’indications ou d’éléments susceptibles de réfuter ces affirmations.

Eu égard en particulier au profil de l’intéressé qui n’est pas seulement soupçonné de liens avec le terrorisme, mais qui a fait l’objet, pour des faits graves, d’une condamnation en France dont les autorités algériennes ont connaissance, la Cour européenne était d’avis qu’il est vraisemblable qu’en cas de renvoi vers l’Algérie le requérant deviendrait une cible pour le DRS.

Par lettre en date du 20/04/2010, les autorités françaises ont indiqué que la France se conformera à cet arrêt en toutes ses dispositions ; la décision de la Cour nationale du droit d’asile du 31/07/2009 fait obstacle au renvoi du requérant en Algérie.

• Informations fournies par les autorités françaises (courrier du 20/08/2010) : Depuis le 10/04/2010, le requérant est assigné à résidence à Longeau-Percey.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours concernant les mesures individuelles.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la question de savoir si l’arrêté d’expulsion pris à l’encontre du requérant est toujours en vigueur.

39364/05           Khider, arrêt du 9/07/2009, définitif le 9/10/2009

Cette affaire concerne les traitements inhumains et dégradants infligés au requérant, condamné à dix ans de réclusion criminelle et actuellement incarcéré à la maison d’arrêt de Liancourt (violation de l’article 3). Dès son incarcération – le 27/08/2001 – le requérant a été inscrit au registre des « détenus particulièrement signalés » (DPS) par la direction de l’administration pénitentiaire. Il a alors été soumis à un régime de sécurité, comportant notamment de nombreux changements d’établissements, des séjours prolongés à l’isolement et des fouilles corporelles systématiques. Le caractère répété de ces fouilles, combiné avec le caractère strict des conditions de détention, ne paraissent pas être justifiées par un impératif convaincant de sécurité, de défense de l’ordre ou de prévention des infractions pénales et sont, de l’avis de la Cour, de nature à créer en lui le sentiment d’avoir été victime de mesures arbitraires.

L’affaire concerne aussi l’absence de recours effectif pour faire valoir ses griefs tirés de l’article 3, à savoir les transfèrements répétés et les fouilles corporelles fréquentes (violation de l’article 13 combiné avec l’article 3).

Mesures de caractère individuel : Les autorités françaises ont indiqué que le requérant a été remis en liberté en août 2009. La Cour européenne lui a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral.

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

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations préliminaires concernant la diffusion de l’arrêt ont été fournies par les autorités.

• Un plan d’action/bilan d’action est attendu.

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. Le requérant n’a formulé aucune observation auprès du Comité des Ministres quant à ses conditions de détention actuelles.

• Evaluation : Il semblerait dès lors qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble 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 ces fouilles prévues par la circulaire du Garde des Sceaux du 14/03/1986 ne sont pas, d’un point de vue général, inhumaines ou dégradantes.

En revanche, la Cour se dit frappée par le fait que, d’un lieu de détention à un autre, les modalités les plus intrusives dans l’intimité corporelle ont été appliquées de manière variable au requérant (§46).

La Cour relève que le requérant a fait l’objet de fouilles intégrales incluant l’obligation « de se pencher et de tousser » 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. Ces inspections anales pratiquées dans de telles conditions ne reposant pas sur un « impératif convaincant de sécurité », de l’ordre ou de prévention des infractions pénales, la Cour comprend que les détenus concernés, tel que le requérant, aient eu le sentiment d'être victimes de mesures arbitraires; la Cour conçoit en outre que ce sentiment ait été accentué par le fait que le régime des fouilles était organisé pour l’essentiel par une circulaire émanant de l’administration elle-même et qu’il laissait au chef d’établissement un large pouvoir d’appréciation (§47).

• 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.

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 (document DD (2009)570), datée du 21/10/2009, faisant état d’insuffisances dans le cadre légal du régime des fouilles, ainsi que dans le projet de loi pénitentiaire, par laquelle ils recommandent notamment:

-           l’abrogation de la circulaire du 14/03/1986 relative à la fouille des détenus ;

-           l’encadrement législatif strict du recours aux fouilles intégrales, notamment à l’égard des détenus particulièrement signalés ;

-           la substitution dans la loi au critère de présomption d’infraction, comme motif de justification des fouilles, celui de l’existence de raisons plausibles de soupçonner que la personne détenue a commis, tenté de commettre ou se prépare à commettre une infraction ;

-           la substitution dans la loi au critère de personnalité, comme motif d’adaptation du régime des fouilles, celui de comportement, dont l’évaluation relève d’une équipe pluridisciplinaire ;

-           l’inscription du principe de proportionnalité dans la loi visant à rendre exceptionnel le recours aux fouilles intégrales, au détriment des fouilles par palpation ;  

Dans leurs observations du 03/11/2009, les autorités françaises ont indiqué en substance que les dispositions contenues dans le projet de loi pénitentiaire, permettent de remédier aux insuffisances relevées par la Cour européenne en ce que le projet de loi reconnaît le principe de stricte nécessité des fouilles, pose le principe de l’interdiction des fouilles à corps et ne réserve le recours aux fouilles intégrales qu’à des situations exceptionnelles et subsidiaires, dans le cas où des techniques moins intrusives ne permettraient pas d’atteindre l’objectif de sécurité recherché (document DD (2009)570). Les autorités ont par ailleurs précisé que « la circulaire du 14 mars 1986, dont le caractère suffisamment prévisible au titre de l’article 3 était contesté par la Cour (§47) dans l’arrêt Frérot, devrait disparaître au profit de ces nouvelles dispositions législatives sur les fouilles ».

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). Son article 57, repris textuellement tel qu’il figurait dans le projet de loi susvisé, est consacré aux fouilles.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les décrets d’application de l’article 57 de la loi pénitentiaire. Par ailleurs, il est à rappeler que les autorités françaises ont souligné que la circulaire du 14/03/1986 devrait disparaître au profit de ces nouvelles dispositions législatives sur les fouilles (document DD (2009)570). Des précisions sont en conséquence attendues sur le sort actuel de la circulaire du Garde des Sceaux du 14/03/1986 ainsi que sur toute autre mesure complémentaire envisagée.

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 conduisait à exclure d’office du champ de protection de cette disposition une catégorie entière d’échanges épistolaires privés auxquels des détenus peuvent souhaiter participer (§61).

• Mesures prises par les autorités : L’article 40 de la loi pénitentiaire (n°2009-1436) affirme le principe de la liberté de correspondance et encadre les restrictions possibles.

Les autorités avaient indiqué que la circulaire contestée du 29/12/1986 n’aurait plus lieu à s’appliquer compte tenu des modifications des dispositions liée à la promulgation de la loi pénitentiaire.

• Une confirmation de cette information serait utile.

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.

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).

3394/03            Medvedyev et autres, arrêt du 29/03/2010 – Grande Chambre

L’affaire concerne la détention irrégulière des requérants, membres de l’équipage d’un cargo dénommé Winner et immatriculé au Cambodge, lequel avait fait l’objet en juin 2002 d’une demande d’interception de la part de la France, étant soupçonné de transporter des quantités importantes de drogue vouées à être distribuées sur les côtes européennes (violation de l’article 5§1).

Par une note verbale du 7/06/2002, le Cambodge donna son accord à l’intervention des autorités françaises. Sur ordre du préfet maritime et à la demande du procureur de la République de Brest, un remorqueur fut dépêché de Brest pour prendre en charge le navire et le dérouter vers ce port français. Suite à l’interception du Winner par la Marine française au large des îles du Cap Vert, l’équipage fut consigné dans les cabines du cargo et maintenu sous la garde des militaires français. A leur arrivée à Brest le 26/06/2002, soit treize jours plus tard, les requérants ont été placés en garde à vue, avant d’être présentés le jour même à des juges d’instruction.

La Cour européenne a d’abord noté que les requérants relevaient bien de la juridiction de la France au sens de l’article 1 de la Convention en raison du contrôle absolu et exclusif, au moins de fait, exercé par les autorités françaises sur le Winner et son équipage dès l’interception du navire, de manière continue et ininterrompue. Ensuite, la Cour européenne a estimé que la situation des requérants après l’arraisonnement constituait bien une privation de liberté au sens de l’article 5, puisque les requérants avaient été soumis au contrôle des forces militaires spéciales et privés de leur liberté durant toute la traversée.

Enfin de l’avis de la Cour européenne, il n’était pas contesté que la privation de liberté des requérants durant le déroutement vers la France avait pour but de les conduire « devant l’autorité judiciaire compétente », au sens de l’article 5§1c). Cependant l’intervention des autorités françaises ne pouvait trouver sa justification, comme le soutient le Gouvernement, dans la Convention de Montego Bay ou dans le droit international coutumier. La loi française n’avait pas non plus vocation à s’appliquer puisque, d’une part, le Cambodge n’était pas partie aux conventions transposées en droit interne, en particulier la Convention de Vienne, et, d’autre part, le Winner ne battait pas pavillon français. La note verbale du 7/06/2002 adressée par les autorités cambodgiennes constituait un accord ponctuel permettant l’interception du Winner, mais pas la détention des requérants et leur transfert qui n’étaient pas visés par cette note. L’intervention des autorités françaises basée sur cette mesure de coopération exceptionnelle – s’ajoutant à l’absence de ratifications des conventions pertinentes par le Cambodge ou de pratique continue entre le les deux pays dans la lutte contre le trafic de stupéfiants en haute mer – ne pouvait passer pour « clairement définie » et prévisible. Ainsi la privation de liberté subie par les requérants à compter de l’arraisonnement et jusqu’à l’arrivée à Brest n’était pas « régulière » faute de base légale ayant les qualités requises pour satisfaire au principe général de sécurité juridique.

9090/06            Blandeau, arrêt du 10/07/2008, définitif le 01/12/2008

L'affaire concerne une entrave disproportionnée au droit d'accès de la requérante au Conseil d’Etat (violation de l’article 6§1). En 2004, elle s’était vue refuser l’octroi d’une aide juridictionnelle pour trois recours distincts introduits devant cette juridiction, concernant sa carrière de fonctionnaire (requêtes en annulation d’un avertissement, d’une notation et d’une décision refusant de lui accorder un congé). Son recours - unique, mais visant les trois décisions de rejet, car les faits de la cause concernaient une même administration – fut rejeté par trois ordonnances distinctes, rendues en mars 2005. Une seule de ces ordonnances fut notifiée à la requérante dans le délai d’un mois dont elle disposait pour pouvoir, le cas échéant, nommer un avocat pour poursuivre la procédure.

La Cour européenne a jugé qu’elle ne pouvait pas spéculer sur ce qu’aurait été la réaction de la requérante si elle avait reçu notification en temps utile des deux autres décisions de rejet. Ella a toutefois estimé que la seule omission du Secrétariat de la section du contentieux du Conseil d’Etat de les notifier à la requérante avaient atteint dans sa substance même le droit d’accès à un tribunal de la requérante.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Devant la Cour européenne, la requérante a demandé une satisfaction équitable pour dommage matériel, en se fondant sur ce qu’elle aurait obtenu si elle avait obtenu des arrêts favorables devant le Conseil d’Etat ou, sur un aspect de la procédure, pour manque à gagner. La Cour a réitéré sa jurisprudence selon laquelle elle ne saurait spéculer sur le résultat auquel les procédures incriminées auraient abouti si elles avaient respecté la Convention. Quant au dommage moral, compte tenu de la nature de la violation, la Cour a estimé qu’il se trouvait suffisamment réparé par le constat de la violation.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours sur d’éventuelles mesures envisagées.

Mesures de caractère général : Compte tenu de la nature la violation, une violation similaire devrait pouvoir être évitée en attirant l’attention des autorités compétentes sur les conclusions de la Cour. Cet arrêt a été communiqué au Président de la Section du Contentieux du Conseil d’Etat, à laquelle est rattaché le bureau d’aide juridictionnelle. Il a également été intégré à la veille juridique réalisée par le centre de documentation du Conseil d’Etat au titre du mois de septembre 2009, et par suite, diffusé auprès de l’ensemble de la juridiction administrative.

- 6 cases mainly concerning the right of access to a court to challenge search and seizure measures undertaken by the tax authorities[25]

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

43757/05           Xavier Da Silveira, judgment of 21/01/2010, final on 21/04/2010

1946/06            Bowler International Unit, arrêt du 23/07/2009, définitif le 23/10/2009

Cette affaire concerne une ingérence dans le droit au respect des biens de la société requérante, propriétaire de bonne foi, en raison de l’impossibilité d’exercer un recours effectif lui permettant de contester utilement la confiscation de ses marchandises. La seule action possible - contre l’auteur de l’infraction - ne constituait pas une possibilité adéquate d’exposer sa cause aux autorités, qui avaient reconnu sa bonne foi (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n^o 1).

• Des informations ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 8/02/2010. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours en vue de réunir les informations complémentaires nécessaires à la présentation d'un bilan d'action au Comité.

5242/04            Dubus S.A., judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009[26]

5 groups of cases concerning the retroactive application of new legislation to pending judicial proceedings / 5 groupes d'affaires concernant l'application rétroactive d'une nouvelle législation à des procédures judiciaires pendantes :

60796/00          Cabourdin, arrêt du 11/04/2006, définitif le 11/07/2006

16043/03          Achache, arrêt du 03/10/2006, définitif le 03/01/2007

15589/05          De Franchis, arrêt du 06/12/2007, définitif le 06/03/2008

40191/02           Ducret, arrêt du 12/06/2007, définitif le 12/09/2007

67847/01          Lecarpentier et autre, arrêt du 14/02/2006, définitif le 14/05/2006

72038/01          Saint-Adam et Millot, arrêts du 02/05/2006, définitif le 02/08/2006 et du 26/04/2007, définitif le 26/07/2007 (article 41)

66018/01          Vezon, arrêt du 18/04/2006, définitif le 13/09/2006

Ces affaires ont trait à l'application rétroactive de la loi n° 96-314 du 12/04/1996 à des procédures judiciaires en cours. Les requérants avaient contracté des prêts bancaires entre 1984 et 1989. Confrontés à des difficultés de remboursement, ils avaient tenté d'en obtenir l'annulation en se fondant sur le non-respect par leur banque respective d'une exigence de forme (joindre à l'offre préalable de prêt un échéancier des amortissements), ce qui aurait entraîné la restitution des sommes versées en exécution du contrat. Les requérants n'obtinrent pas satisfaction, du fait de l'application rétroactive de la loi précitée par les juridictions saisies de ces affaires. En vertu de cette loi, sous réserve des décisions de justice passées en force de chose jugée, les offres de prêt qui avaient été émises avant le 31/12/1994 sans tenir compte de l'exigence de forme susmentionnée sont réputées régulières, à certaines conditions qu'elle énonce.

Dans les affaires Cabourdin, Saint-Adam et Millot, Vezon et Ducret, la Cour européenne a conclu à l'iniquité des procédures judiciaires concernées dans la mesure où l'intervention législative litigieuse qui réglait définitivement, de manière rétroactive, le fond du litige opposant des particuliers devant les juridictions internes, n'était pas justifiée par d'impérieux motifs d'intérêt général (violations de l'article 6§1).

Dans les affaires Lecarpentier, Achache et de Franchis, la Cour européenne a conclu que la mesure législative litigieuse avait fait peser une « charge anormale et exorbitante » sur les requérants et l'atteinte portée à leurs biens avait revêtu un caractère disproportionné (violations de l'article 1 du Protocole n°1).

Mesures de caractère individuel :

            1) dans les affaires Cabourdin, Lecarpentier, Vezon, Achache, Ducret et de Franchis: la Cour européenne a dit qu'elle ne saurait spéculer sur ce qu'eût été l'issue des procès litigieux si les violations n'avaient été commises. Toutefois elle a également dit, dans les affaires Cabourdin, Vezon et Ducret, qu'elle « n'estime pas déraisonnable de penser que les intéressés ont subi une perte de chances réelles » et, dans les affaires Lecarpentier, Achache et de Franchis, que « les requérants ont subi une atteinte au droit au respect de leurs biens ». Dans ces circonstances et statuant sur les demandes des requérants au titre des préjudices à la fois moral et matériel, la Cour leur a octroyé une satisfaction équitable toutes causes de préjudice confondues (pour préjudice moral et matériel).

            2) dans l'affaire Saint-Adam et Millot : Dans son arrêt du 26/04/2007 sur la satisfaction équitable, la Cour a dit que l'Etat défendeur devait verser aux requérants 60 000 euros pour dommage matériel, plus tout montant pouvant être dû au titre de l'impôt.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités françaises (lettres du 4/01/2007, du 21/02/2008 et du 07/07/2008) : Les autorités françaises et plus spécifiquement le Ministère de l'Economie et des Finances ont dans un premier temps indiqué procéder à une réflexion approfondie et à une concertation interne sur l'usage des « lois de validation » et sur les mesures pouvant s'avérer nécessaires pour éviter de nouvelles violations. Le Gouvernement s’était déclaré très préoccupé par la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne dans les affaires relatives aux « lois de validation » et a mené une réflexion sur la portée de cette jurisprudence sur la pratique des lois de validation.

Dans le même temps, en particulier par sa lettre du 07/07/2008, la délégation a attiré l’attention du Comité des Ministres sur le fait que la jurisprudence du juge français en la matière intègre progressivement les contraintes posées par la jurisprudence européenne dans ce domaine et tend à s’en approcher. A cet égard, la délégation a fourni des explications relatives à la jurisprudence des juridictions suivantes :

- Conseil constitutionnel : en particulier, celui-ci veille notamment à ce que les lois de validation législative poursuivent un « but d’intérêt général suffisant » (dans l’arrêt Lecarpentier, la Cour européenne a d’ailleurs relevé que sur ce point « le Conseil constitutionnel, s’inspir(e) de la jurisprudence de la Cour », § 46). Lorsque ce critère n’est pas rempli, il n’hésite pas à censurer des mesures de validation.

Cour de cassation : quant à elle, a adopté ce même critère dès. En outre, elle a, par trois arrêts du 24/01/2006, immédiatement tiré les conséquences des arrêts Draon et Maurice du 06/10/2005 et écarté pour inconventionnalité l’application de la loi de validation concernée.

Conseil d’Etat : depuis 2004, il se réfère à la justification « d’impérieux motifs d’intérêt général » (et non plus seulement d’un « intérêt général suffisant »). A l’instar de la Cour de cassation, il a dès le 24/02/2006, tiré les conséquences des arrêts Draon et Maurice et écartant l’application de la loi litigieuse. Plus récemment, par décision du 25/04/2007, le Conseil d’Etat a jugé que les dispositions de l’article 127 de la loi du 30/12/2005 de finances rectificative méconnaissait les dispositions de l’article 6§1 de la Convention, car les motifs avancés pour justifier la rétroactivité de ces dispositions ne revêtaient pas le caractère impérieux d’intérêt général et dans la mesure où ces dispositions avaient pour objet d’influer sur l’issue de procédures juridictionnelles en cours.

Dans ce contexte, il est rappelé que l'arrêt de la Cour européenne dans l'affaire Vezon avait sans délai été adressé au Procureur général près la Cour de cassation ainsi qu'au Procureur général près la Cour d'appel. De plus, il est également rappelé que les arrêts de la Cour européenne sont systématiquement diffusés aux juridictions et directions du Ministère de la Justice concernées.

Le 09/04/2009, les autorités ont indiqué que le 09/03/2009, la Directrice des affaires juridiques du Ministère des affaires étrangères et européennes avait adressé une note aux directions juridiques de tous les ministères, ainsi qu’au Conseil d’Etat et au secrétariat général du gouvernement, qui assure un rôle de coordination interministérielle. Les autorités précisent que cette note détaillée fait le point sur les arrêts de la Cour européenne en matière de lois de validation, afin de sensibiliser l’ensemble des administrations concernées aux critères retenus par la Cour en ce domaine. Selon les autorités, cette diffusion devrait permettre d’envisager la clôture de ces affaires. Le 2/10/2009, les autorités ont indiqué plus précisément le contenu de cette note.

Elles ont par ailleurs souligné que celle-ci a été diffusée aux administrations qui préparent les projets de loi, que l’exécutif, toujours présent lors du vote d’une loi, peut apporter aux parlementaires les éclairages au besoin nécessaires et que les services juridiques des assemblées se tiennent au courant des évolutions de la jurisprudence de la Cour, comme le démontre l’existence d’une note de synthèse du service des études juridiques du Sénat, en date du 10/02/2006, sur « Le régime juridique des validations législatives » qui comprend l’analyse de la jurisprudence de la Cour.

• L’examen de ces informations est en cours.

20127/03+         Arnolin et autres et 24 autres affaires, arrêt du 09/01/2007, définitif le 09/04/2007

31501/03+         Aubert et autres et 8 autres affaires, arrêt du 9/01/2007, définitif le 9//04/2007

Ces affaires concernent une atteinte au droit à un procès équitable (violation de l'article 6§1 dans l'affaire Arnolin et autres) et une atteinte au droit au respect de ses biens (violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n°1 dans l'affaire Aubert et autres) en raison de l'adoption d'une loi visant à régler des litiges en cours et de son application audits litiges. Les requérants (des éducateurs, conseillers, moniteurs, aides médico-psychologiques ou animateurs) avaient saisi les juridictions françaises d'un litige concernant la rémunération de permanences de nuit les opposant à leur employeur, des établissements gérés par des associations et placés sous tutelle de l'Etat. Alors que la plupart de leurs recours étaient pendants, la loi n° 2000-37 du 19/01/2000 entra en vigueur, s'appliquant aux affaires en cours et mettant un terme à la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation qui leur était favorable.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour a alloué aux requérants une satisfaction équitable au titre des préjudices moral et matériel (1 508 000 euros au total pour l'affaire Arnolin et autres, 961 000 euros pour l'affaire Aubert et autres). Les requérants ne semblent pas subir de conséquences de la violation qui n'auraient été couvertes par la satisfaction équitable.

• Evaluation : Aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire

Mesures de caractère général : Les informations sur les mesures relatives à ce type d'affaires (concernant des « lois de validation législative ») sont présentées sous l'affaire Cabourdin à laquelle il convient de se référer, ci-dessus.

954/05              Chiesi S.A., arrêt du 16/01/2007, définitif le 16/04/2007

L'affaire concerne une atteinte au droit à un procès équitable (violation de l'article 6§1) en raison de l'adoption d'une loi visant à régler des litiges en cours et de son application à un litige opposant la société requérante au Ministère de la santé. La requérante intenta une procédure administrative à la suite de la décision du Ministre de la Santé, de la Famille et des personnes handicapées d'abaisser de 65 % à 35 % le taux de remboursement de certaines spécialités pharmaceutiques et notamment d'un médicament produit par la requérante. Alors que la procédure était en cours entra en vigueur la loi n° 2003-1199 de financement de la sécurité sociale pour 2004. Cette loi contenait une disposition, applicable aux procédures en cours, s'opposant à une jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat jusqu'alors favorable aux personnes se trouvant dans la situation de la requérante.

La Cour européenne a observé notamment que l'exclusion des procédures pendantes du champ d'application de la loi en cause dans cette affaire n'aurait pas empêché d'atteindre l'objectif poursuivi par les pouvoirs publics tout en respectant l'égalité des armes pour les instances en cours.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a rejeté la demande de préjudice matériel parce qu'elle n'apercevait pas de lien entre la violation constatée et le dommage matériel allégué. Elle a alloué une satisfaction équitable pour préjudice moral à la société requérante.

• Evaluation : Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours afin d'évaluer si des mesures complémentaires sont requises.

Mesures de caractère général : Les informations sur les mesures relatives à ce type d'affaires (concernant des « lois de validation législative ») sont présentées sous l'affaire Cabourdin, à laquelle il convient de se référer, ci-dessus.

12106/03           SCM Scanner de l'ouest lyonnais et autres, arrêt du 21/06/2007, définitif le 21/09/2007

L'affaire concerne une atteinte au droit à un procès équitable (violation de l'article 6§1) en raison de l'adoption d'une loi visant à régler des litiges en cours et de son application à un litige opposant la société requérante au Ministre des affaires sociales et de l'intégration en raison d'une baisse des taux de prise en charge des actes de scannographie. Alors que la procédure précontentieuse - obligatoire en l'espèce - était en cours, entra en vigueur la loi n^o 97-1164 du 19/12/1997 portant loi de financement de la Sécurité sociale pour l'année 1998 qui fixait définitivement les termes du débat.

La Cour européenne a observé notamment que l'exclusion des procédures pendantes du champ d'application de la loi en cause dans cette affaire n'aurait pas empêché d'atteindre l'objectif poursuivi par les pouvoirs publics tout en respectant l'égalité des armes pour les instances en cours.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a relevé que la seule base à retenir pour l'octroi d'une satisfaction équitable résidait en l'espèce dans le fait que les requérants n'avaient pu jouir des garanties de l'article 6§1. A cet égard, la Cour a rappelé qu'elle ne saurait spéculer sur ce qu'eût été l'issue du procès dans le cas contraire, qui plus est lorsque, comme en l'espèce, les requérants n'ont bénéficié d'aucune décision interne rendue en leur faveur. A cela s'ajoute un préjudice moral auquel le constat de violation figurant dans le présent arrêt ne suffit pas à remédier. Statuant en équité, elle a alloué une somme aux requérants conjointement, toutes causes de préjudice confondues.

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire

Mesures de caractère général : Les informations sur les mesures relatives à ce type d'affaires (concernant des « lois de validation législative ») sont présentées sous l'affaire Cabourdin à laquelle il convient de se référer, ci-dessus.

30345/05           Joubert, arrêt du 23/07/2009, définitif le 10/12/2009

Cette affaire concerne l’intervention d’une loi rétroactive au cours d’une procédure en contestation de redressement fiscal (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n^o 1).

La Cour européenne a constaté que l’intervention de l’article 122 de la loi de finances pour 1997, qui réglait de manière rétroactive et définitive le litige opposant les requérants à l’administration fiscale, n’était pas justifiée par l’intérêt général. Selon la Cour l’adoption de l’article 122 a fait peser une « charge anormale et exorbitante » sur les requérants et l’atteinte portée à leurs biens a revêtu un caractère disproportionné, rompant le juste équilibre entre les exigences de l’intérêt général et la sauvegarde des droits fondamentaux des individus.

- 3 affaires concernant la non-exécution de décisions judiciaires définitives ordonnant l’expulsion de locataires illégaux des terrains des requérants

13829/03           Barret et Sirjean, arrêt du 21/01/2010, définitif le 21/04/2010

10271/02           R.P.,  arrêt du 21/01/2010, définitif le 21/04/2010

28440/05           Fernandez et autres, arrêt du 21/01/2010, définitif le 21/04/2010

Ces affaires concernent l’atteinte au droits des requérants au respect de leur bien en raison de l’inaction des autorités dans l’exécution de mesures d’expulsion relatives à leurs terrains illégalement occupés par des membres de la Coordination rurale puis du Syndicat corse de l’agriculture (R.P.), un agriculteur corse soutenu par des militants nationalistes (Barret et Sirjean) et des membres du centre des jeunes agriculteurs de Haute-Corse (Fernandez et autres) (violations de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

Des mesures judiciaires d’expulsion avaient été prononcées à l’encontre des occupants sans titre, respectivement le 9/04/1998 (R.P.), le 22/11/2000 (Barret et Sirjean) et le 19/04/1983(Fernandez et autres).

La Cour européenne a constaté que depuis les décisions définitives en faveur des requérants, les autorités n’avaient rien entrepris pour faire libérer les terres illégalement occupées. Si la Cour européenne est consciente des difficultés rencontrées par les autorités françaises pour renforcer l’État de droit en Corse, les autorités se devaient de prendre rapidement toutes les mesures nécessaires pour que les décisions de justice soient respectées et que les requérants retrouvent la pleine jouissance de leurs biens. En l'absence de toute justification d'intérêt général, l’inaction des autorités a abouti à une sorte d'expropriation privée dont les occupants illégaux se sont retrouvés bénéficiaires. En laissant perdurer une telle situation, les autorités ont encouragé certains individus à dégrader en toute impunité les biens des requérants et ont laissé s’installer un climat de crainte et d’insécurité non propice au retour des requérants. Ce type de situation témoigne de l’inefficacité du système d'exécution et comporte le risque d'aboutir à une forme de « justice privée » néfaste à la confiance du public dans le système juridique. Ainsi l’équilibre entre les exigences de l’intérêt général et la protection des intérêts patrimoniaux des requérants a été rompu, en violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1.

- 1 case against Georgia and the Russian Federation / 1 affaire contre la Géorgie et la Fédération de Russie

36378/02           Shamaïev and 12 others, judgment of 12/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005[27]

- 12 cases against Georgia / 12 affaires contre la Géorgie

- 3 affaires concernant le défaut d'enquête effective sur les allégations des requérants au sujet de mauvais traitements qu'ils auraient subis

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.

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.

• De nouvelles informations concernant la reprise d’une enquête dans cette affaire sont parvenues au Secrétariat le 5/11/2010 et sont actuellement en cours d’examen.

3) Nouvelle enquête dans l'affaire Danelia :

• De nouvelles informations concernant la reprise d’une enquête dans cette affaire sont parvenues au Secrétariat le 5/11/2010 et sont actuellement en cours d’examen.

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.

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.

71156/01          97 members of the Gldani Congregation of the Jehova’s witnesses and 4 others, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007[28]

30323/02           Pandjikidzé et autres, arrêt du 27/10/2009, définitif le 27/01/2010

4313/04            Gorguiladzé, arrêt du 20/10/2009, définitif le 20/01/2010

Ces affaires concernent une atteinte au droit des requérants à un procès équitable dans la mesure où ils ont été jugés par un tribunal qui ne peut être considéré comme un « tribunal établi par la loi », deux des trois juges de la formation de jugement étant des magistrats non professionnels dont l'exercice n'était régi par aucune loi (violations de l'article 6§1).

L'affaire Gorgiladzé concerne en outre les conditions inhumaines et dégradantes dans lesquelles le requérant a été détenu, janvier à août 2003 ainsi que de décembre 2004 à juillet 2005, à la prison n° 5 de Tbilissi (violation de l'article 3).

Dans l'affaire Pandjikidzé et autres, trois des requérants ont été jugés coupables de haute trahison le 8/11/2001 et condamné à 3 ans ou 2 ans et 5 mois d'emprisonnement.

M. Gorgiladzé a été condamné le 21/05/2003 à 18 ans d'emprisonnement pour homicide. Il est toujours en détention.

Dans toutes ces affaires, la Cour européenne a alloué aux requérants, une satisfaction équitable pour dommage moral. Elle a en outre dit que lorsqu'il y a eu, comme en l'espèce, une condamnation en premier ressort par un tribunal qui n'était pas établi par la loi contrairement aux exigences de l'article 6 de la Convention, et qu'un nouvel examen global de l'affaire au fond n'a pas eu lieu par la suite, un nouveau procès ou une réouverture de la procédure quant au fond, à la demande des requérants concernés, représente en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée.

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes (28/04/2010) :l'arrêt de la Cour européenne a été traduit et publié dans le journal officiel n°37 du 19 avril 2010.

7975/06            Klaus and Yuri Kiladze, judgment of 2/02/2010, final on 2/05/2010 The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in that they were prevented from receiving compensation to which they were entitled by virtue of their status as victims of political oppression, owing to the state’s total failure to ensure the adoption of the implementing texts of the Law of 11/12/1997 on the recognition of the status of victim of political repression for Georgian citizens and the social protection of the oppressed (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The applicants are brothers whose father was tried and shot in October 1937 for “sabotage and terror” and whose mother was deported to a camp in the Gulag where she remained from November 1938 until 1945. They themselves were placed in an orphanage for several years. In a final decision dated 2/09/1998 of the court of first instance in Sabourthalo, Tbilisi, the applicants were granted the status of victims of political repression. On 15/03/2005 the applicants, relying on Article 9 of the Law of 11/12/1997 mentioned above, brought an action for redress of the damage incurred. The national courts acknowledged that their situation qualified them for monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but noted that, as the implementing texts of the Law had not been adopted, their application could not be upheld (Supreme Court decision of 2/11/2005). Recalling Committee of Ministers’ Resolution Res(2004)3 of 12/05/2004 on judgments revealing an underlying structural problem, the European Court noted that the problem of a legislative vacuum raised by this case concerned not only the applicants but anything between 600 and 16 000 others, and that consequently legislative, administrative and budgetary measures should be speedily taken in order that those concerned by Article 9 of the law of 11/12/1997 might effectively benefit from the right guaranteed them by this provision. It also ruled that if the measures were still not taken within six months following the date when the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44§2 of the Convention, the respondent state would be required to pay each of the applicants 4 000 euros (to be converted into Georgian lari at the rate applicable on the date of settlement) in respect of non-pecuniary damages, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts. The time-limit expired on 2/11/2010 and only information on the payment of costs and expenses has been received by the Secretariat. The Deputies, 1.             recalling that all respondent states have the legal obligation not just to pay any sum awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general measures and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects; 2.             as far as general measures are concerned, recalling that in this case it was noted already in the judgment of the Court that the structural problem revealed by the case was clearly capable of generating a great number of applications to the Court and that the necessary legislative, administrative and budgetary measures should thus rapidly be taken in order to ensure that persons falling under Article 9 of the Law of 11 December 1997 may effectively benefit form the right guaranteed by this provision; 3.             noted with interest the information provided by the Georgian authorities with respect to the latest developments in this case, in particular the round table organised in Strasbourg on 8 November 2010 and the plan of action under preparation following this meeting; 4.             decided to resume the examination of this item, and in particular the issues relating to the general measures and the plan of action, at the latest at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH).

7975/06            Klaus et Iouri Kiladze, arrêt du 2/02/2010, définitif le 2/05/2010 L’affaire concerne une atteinte au droit des requérants au respect de leurs biens (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1). Les requérants n’ont jamais pu recevoir les indemnités auxquelles leur statut de victime des répressions politiques leur donnait droit, en raison de l’inactivité totale de l’Etat pour que les textes d’application de la loi du 11/12/1997 sur le statut de victime des répressions politiques soient adoptés. Les requérants sont deux frères dont le père a été jugé et fusillé en octobre 1937 pour « sabotage et terreur » et dont la mère a été déportée dans un camp du Goulag où elle est restée de novembre 1938 à 1945. Eux-mêmes ont été placés dans un centre pour enfants sans famille durant plusieurs années. Par une décision définitive en date du 2/09/1998 du tribunal de 1° instance de Sabourthalo de Tbilissi, les requérants se sont vus reconnaître le statut de victime des répressions politiques. Le 15/03/2005 les requérants, se fondant sur l'article 9 de la loi du 11/12/1997 relative à la reconnaissance du statut de victime des répressions politiques aux ressortissants géorgiens et à la protection sociale des réprimés, introduisirent devant les tribunaux nationaux, une demande de compensation du dommage subi. Les tribunaux reconnurent que la situation des requérants leur donnait droit à une indemnisation pécuniaire du dommage moral mais que les textes d’application de la loi du 11/12/1997 sur le statut de victime des répressions politiques n’étant pas adoptés, leur demande ne pouvait être accueillie (décision de la Cour suprême du 2/11/2005). Rappelant la Résolution Res(2004)3 du 12/05/2004 sur les arrêts qui révèlent un problème structurel sous-jacent, la Cour européenne a relevé que le problème de vide législatif soulevé par cette affaire ne concernait pas seulement les requérants, mais entre 600 et 16 000 personnes et que, par conséquent, des mesures législatives, administratives et budgétaires devaient être prises rapidement afin que les personnes visées par l'article 9 de la loi du 11/12/1997 puissent bénéficier effectivement de leur droit garanti par cette disposition. Elle a dit en outre que, si ces mesures faisaient toujours défaut dans les six mois à compter du jour où l'arrêt sera devenu définitif conformément à l'article 44 § 2 de la Convention, l'Etat défendeur devrait verser à chacun des requérants, 4 000 euros (à convertir en laris géorgiens au taux applicable à la date du règlement) pour dommage moral plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d'impôt sur lesdites sommes. Le délai précité a expiré le 2/11/2010 et seules des informations concernant le paiement des frais et dépens sont parvenues au Secrétariat. Les Délégués, 1.             rappelant que tout Etat défendeur est appelé non seulement à verser aux intéressés les sommes allouées au titre de la satisfaction équitable, mais aussi à choisir, sous le contrôle du Comité des Ministres, les mesures générales et/ou, le cas échéant, les mesures individuelles à adopter dans son ordre juridique interne afin de mettre un terme à la violation constatée par la Cour et d'en effacer autant que possible les conséquences ; 2.             rappelant que, en ce qui concerne les mesures générales, dans cette affaire, la Cour a déjà relevé dans son arrêt que le problème structurel mis en évidence dans cette affaire était clairement susceptible de donner lieu à un grand nombre de requêtes devant la Cour et que des mesures législatives, administratives et budgétaires nécessaires devaient ainsi être prises rapidement afin que les personnes visées par l'article 9 de la loi du 11 décembre 1997 puissent bénéficier effectivement du droit que leur garantit cette disposition ; 3.             notent avec intérêt les informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes sur les derniers développements dans cette affaire, notamment la table ronde organisée à Strasbourg le 8 novembre 2010 et le plan d’action en cours de préparation suite à cette réunion ; 4.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point, et notamment des questions relatives aux mesures de caractère général et le plan d’action, au plus tard lors de la 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH).

74644/01           Donadze, judgment of 07/03/2006, final on 07/06/2006[29]

41957/04           Kharitonashvili, judgment of 10/02/2009, final on 10/05/2009[30]

40022/05           Kobelyan, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 06/11/2009[31]

- 37 cases against Germany / 37 affaires contre l'Allemagne

22978/05           Gäfgen, judgment of 01/06/2010 – Grand Chamber, rectified on 03/06/2010

The case concerns ill-treatment suffered by the applicant, who was suspected of kidnapping and murder and was threatened by the police with torture for the purpose of extracting information from him while being interrogated on 1/10/2002 (violation of Article 3).

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

19359/04           M., judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 10/05/2010

The case concerns the unjustified extension of the applicant’s preventive detention beyond the maximum of ten years, under the legal provisions applicable at the time of his offence and conviction, without any judicial order (violation of Article 5§1).

Under German law, the sentencing court may, at the time of the offender's conviction, order preventive detention under certain circumstances in addition to the prison sentence if the offender has been shown to be dangerous to the public. In the applicant’s case, he was convicted in November 1986 and at the same time the sentencing court ordered his preventive detention relying on the report of a neurological and psychiatric expert, who found that the applicant was dangerous to the public. Since 18/08/1991, although the applicant served his full prison sentence, is being kept in preventive detention.

The European Court found that there was no sufficient causal connection between the applicant’s conviction and his continued privation of liberty for an indefinite period of time

The case further concerns a breach of prohibition of retrospective heavier penalties in that the extension of the applicant’s preventive detention for an unlimited period of time constituted an additional penalty which was not applicable at the time of his offence and conviction (violation of Article 7§1).

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

22028/04           Zaunegger, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

The case concerns discrimination against the applicant in his capacity as father of a child born out of wedlock due to provisions of domestic law (Article 1626a §2 of the German Civil Code) and court decisions of 2003 that prevented him from assuming joint custody of his daughter (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8).

The European Court observed that under Article 1626a §1 of the German Civil Code, the parents of a minor child born out of wedlock may exercise joint custody if they make a declaration to that effect (joint custody declaration) or if they marry. Otherwise Article 1626a§2 provides that the mother obtains sole custody.

The European Court did not share the assumption that joint custody against the will of the mother is prima facie not in the child's interest. While it was true that legal proceedings on attribution of parental authority might unsettle a child, domestic law provided for judicial review of the attribution of parental authority in cases where the parents were or had been married or had opted for joint parental authority. The European Court did not see sufficient reasons why the situation in the present case call for a lesser degree of judicial scrutiny. The Court concluded that in respect of the discrimination at issue there was not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the general exclusion of judicial review of the initial attribution of sole custody to the mother and the aim pursued, namely the protection of the best interests of a child born out of wedlock.

Individual measures: In this case, individual measures are linked to the general measures.

General measures (According to the action plan provided by the German authorities on 31/03/2010 and updated on 26/04/2010):

            1) Publication and dissemination of the judgment: The European Court's judgment was published in German on the German webpage of the European Court. It will be published in the Annual Report 2009 of the Ministry of Justice concerning European Court’s judgments against Germany.

It was also sent to a number of legal journals for publication, and was sent out to the competent authorities including the courts that were involved in the court proceedings. The judgment was published in the following legal periodicals: in the Newsletter Menschenrechte (“Human Rights Newsletter”) 2009/6, page 348; in the Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht (FamRZ) (“Journal of Family Law”) 2010, page 103; and in the Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) (“New Legal Weekly”) 2010, page 501.

            2) Legislative measures: A new draft law is under preparation by the Federal Ministry of Justice to amend the current law for the purposes of execution of this judgment. It is envisaged that fathers should have the opportunity to obtain joint parental custody without the mandatory consent of the mother.

            3) Constitutional Court’s judgment: In a judgment of 21/07/2010, the Federal Constitutional Court ordered that until the revised legislation enters into force, the Family Court, on the application of a parent, is to transfer parental custody or part thereof to the parents jointly, provided it is to be expected that this complies with the best interests of the child. On the application of a parent, parental custody or part

thereof is to be transferred to the father alone where joint parental custody is out of the question and it is to be expected that this best complies with the best interests of the child.

• Assessment: The binding regulation of the Constitutional Court until the entry into force of the new law is welcome.

• Information is awaited on the adoption of this law.

10597/03           Ommer No. 1, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

26073/03           Ommer No. 2, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

30175/07           Wetjen, judgment of 25/03/2010

The Ommer cases concern the excessive length of various criminal proceedings against the same applicant on charges of fraud concerning his business activities. The Wetjen case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of a number of offences allegedly committed while he had been acting as a court-appointed liquidator, including the grant of an undue benefit and embezzlement (violations of Article 6§1).

In the case of Ommer No.1, proceedings concerning the DETAG investment trust corporation began on 19/02/1987 and ended on 24/09/2002 with the Federal Constitutional Court's refusal to admit the applicant's constitutional complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings following his acquittal (final on 4/02/2002). The proceedings thus lasted for more than 15 years and 7 months (at the investigation stage and 3 levels of jurisdiction).

In the case of Ommer No.2, the investigation proceedings against the applicant concerning property funds of the IHV company began on 6/12/1990 and ended on 3/02/2003 with the prosecutor's decision to discontinue the proceedings. They thus lasted for approximately 12 years and 2 months.

In the Wetjen case, the proceedings began on 7/02/2000 and ended on 9/06/2008 (eight years and four months) when the Halle Public Prosecutor withdrew the appeal against the decision of Halle Regional Court of 17/03/2008 acquitting the applicant of all of charges.

The Wetjen case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy which could have expedited the proceedings or provided adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The proceedings at issue are over.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

            1) Lack of staff: The European Court found that unreasonable delays occurred before the Cologne investigation authorities and Regional Court due to lack of staff (see §55 of the Ommer (No.1) judgment).

(a) Cologne Public Prosecutor's office: The German authorities have indicated that in 2003 a special division composed of highly qualified experts was created in the Cologne Public Prosecutor's office to deal with organised economic crimes and large-scale criminal cases. Modern technological facilities were installed. In 2009, additionally recruited prosecutors in North-Rhine-Westphalia were allocated to divisions dealing with economic crimes.

(b) Cologne Regional Court: Furthermore, the Cologne Regional Court has also been reinforced with additional personnel. For several years, members of the civil section assisted the criminal section. Since May 2007, four additional judges were assigned to the Cologne Regional Court. These measures have contributed to accelerating criminal proceedings.

       2) Acceleratory and compensatory remedies for excessive length of criminal proceedings following acquittal or discontinuation of investigations (Action Plan dated 23/06/2010 concerning Sürmeli group): See Sürmeli group (75529/01, Section 4.2) regarding the measures underway.

            3) Publication and dissemination: The European Court's judgments were published in German on the German webpage of the European Court (http://www.coe.int/T/D/Menschenrechtsgerichtshof/Dokumente_auf_Deutsch/Volltext/Urteile/) and in the Annual Reports 2008 and 2009 of the Ministry of Justice concerning judgments against Germany (http://www.bmj.de/files/-/3852/EGMR%20Rechtsprechung%202008.pdf). They were also sent to a number of legal journals for publication, and were sent out to the competent authorities.

- 31 cases mainly concerning the length of judicial proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy

75529/01          Sürmeli, judgment of 08/06/2006 - Grand Chamber

54215/08           Abduvalieva, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

44036/02           Adam, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 04/03/2009

10732/05           Bähnk, judgment of 09/10/2008, final on 09/01/2009

1479/08            Ballhausen, judgment of 23/04/2009, final on 23/07/2009

8453/04            Bayer, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

7634/05            Bozlar, judgment of 05/03/2009, final on 05/06/2009

1126/05            D.E., judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 06/11/2009

7369/04            Deiwick, judgment of 26/03/2009, final on 26/06/2009

17878/04           Deiwick, judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009

1679/03 Glüsen, judgment of 10/01/2008, final on 10/04/2008

20027/02           Herbst, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 11/04/2007

1182/05            Hub, judgment of 09/04/2009, final on 09/07/2009

10053/08           Jesse, judgment of 22/12/2009

37820/06           Kindereit, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

19124/02           Kirsten, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 09/07/2007

21061/06           Kressin, judgment of 22/12/2009

14635/03           Laudon, judgment of 26/04/2007, final on 24/09/2007

58911/00           Leela Förderkreis E.V. and others, judgment of 06/11/2008, final on 06/02/2009

71972/01           Mianowicz No. 2, judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 01/03/2010, rectified on 13/10/2009

36395/07           Müller, judgment of 25/02/2010, final on 25/05/2010

39741/02           Nanning, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 12/10/2007

12852/08           Niedzwiecki No. 2, judgment of 01/04/2010

901/05              Peterman, judgment of 25/03/2010

485/09              Reinhard, judgment of 25/03/2010, rectified on 31/05/2010

32338/07           Ritter-Coulais, judgment of 30/03/2010

46682/07           Sinkovec, judgment of 30/03/2010

76680/01           Skugor, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 24/09/2007

47757/06           Sopp, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

54188/07           Volkmer, judgment of 30/03/2010

42402/05+         Wildgruber, judgment of 21/01/2010, final on 21/04/2010

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

The cases of Sürmeli, Wildgruber, Bähnk, Kirsten, Mianovicz No. 2, Ritter-Coulais and Volkmer also concern the lack of an effective remedy. The cases of Sürmeli, Mianovicz No. 2, Ritter-Coulais,Volkmer, Wildgruber and Bähnk concern the lack of an effective remedy in German law in respect of lengthy civil proceedings; the Kirsten case concerns the lack of an effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: Proceedings are still pending in the cases of Ballhausen, Mianovicz No. 2, Reinhard, Ritter-Coulais and Volkmer.

• Information is awaited as to whether the proceedings still pending may be accelerated.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 6§1:

• Information provided by the German authorities (letter of 29/01/2009): In 2008, the average length of civil proceedings before district courts was 4,5 months (4,5 months in 2007 and 4,4 months in 2005), before regional courts 8,1 months (7,9 months in 2007 and 7,4 months in 2005).

In 2007, for appeal cases before the regional courts the average length of civil proceedings was 5,5 months (4,9 months in 2005), which amounted to 16,5 months (15,5 months in 2005) including the length of procedure at first instance. Before the Court of Appeal the average time of appeal was 7,5 months (7,5 months in 2005), but including the length of proceedings before the previous instances it amounted to 24,1 months (23,2 months in 2005).

The German authorities have indicated that the length of main proceedings has continuously shortened in recent years and that the average length of proceedings may be considered reasonable.

            2) Violations of Article 13: According to the European Court in the Sürmeli judgment, a bill to introduce into German written law a new remedy in respect of inaction was tabled in September 2005 (§138 of the judgment). The European Court considered that the proposed preventive remedy would address the root cause of the problem of length of proceedings and therefore considered it unnecessary to indicate any general measures for the execution of this case under Article 46 (§139 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the German authorities (23/06/2010): A draft Act on legal protection in case of excessive length of court proceedings and criminal investigation proceedings was prepared by the Federal Ministry of Justice and transmitted to the relevant federal ministries and federal courts in March 2010. The aim of the draft legislation is to prevent excessively long proceedings and to provide adequate redress for delays which have already occurred. In April 2010, the draft was also forwarded to the Länder, to relevant associations, to the offices of the parliamentary groups in the German Bundestag and Bundesrat. Following the deadline for the submission of the comments (beginning of June 2010), all the comments received would be subjected to thorough analysis. According to the information provided by the German authorities, the legislative process of the bill, involving the Cabinet, the Head of Federal Chancellery, the Bundesrat, and the Bundestag could take some time.

According to this draft law:

-           Complaints of delay should first be lodged in the framework of the original proceedings. The court concerned may react to a complaint by taking remedial action, otherwise, action for damages may be brought while the proceedings are still pending.

-           A new kind of compensatory remedy would be introduced for cases in which the length of proceedings is excessive. This remedy would be applicable to all types of proceedings and would be established in the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, GVG). It is planned that jurisdiction in respect of compensatory actions would reside with the higher regional courts (Oberlandesgericht, OLG). Decisions should be taken by the divisions in the higher regional courts. Leave to appeal on points of law to the Federal Court of Justice may be granted in order to guarantee uniformity of rulings. However, in order to ensure that compensation proceedings cannot be protracted, there will be no legal remedy against denial of leave to appeal.

-           These regulations would also be applicable to applications pending before the European Court.

The authorities indicated that a comparable solution will be drawn up for the Federal Constitutional Court in accordance with the special features applicable to constitutional proceedings.

• Information is awaited on the further steps taken regarding the adoption of this draft law.

3) Publication and dissemination: All judgments of the European Court against Germany are publicly available via the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice (http://www.bmj.de, Themen: Menschenrechte, EGMR) which provides a direct link to the European Court's website for judgments in German (http://www.coe.int/T/D/Menschenrechtsgerichtshof/Dokumente_auf_Deutsch). Furthermore, the Sürmeli judgment was published in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2006, pp. 2389 and Europäische Grundrechtezeitschrift (EuGRZ 34 10-14/2007, pp. 255) and was further sent out by letter of the Government Agent of 9/06/2006 to the courts and justice authorities concerned, i.e. the Federal Constitutional Court, the Federal Court of Justice and all state justice administrations, all Ministries of Justice of the Länder (Landesjustizverwaltungen). The other judgments were also sent out to the courts concerned by letter of the Government Agent.

The German authorities further stated that most of the judgments would be included in the Report on the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and on the Execution of Judgments asainst the Federal Republic of Germany (2009 and 2010) prepared by the Federal Ministry of Justice. These reports are widely disseminated and publicly available via the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice (www.bmj.de <http://www.bmj.de>, Themen/Menschenrechte/EGMR/Rechtsprechung des EMGR).

- 314 cases against Greece / 314 affaires contre la Grèce

                       - 9 cases concerning actions of police forces

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

2945/07            Galotskin, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010

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

These cases concern certain violations arising from the action of the police, as follows:

            - Use of lethal force by the police in the absence of an adequate legislative and administrative framework governing the use of firearms and lack of effective investigation: The Makaratzis, Celniku, Karagiannopoulos and Leonidis cases concern the authorities' failure to exercise their positive obligation to set up a legislative and administrative framework governing the use of firearms by the police sufficient to protect citizens' right to life (substantial violations of Article 2). These cases, except for Leonidis, also concern the absence of effective investigation of the events in question (procedural violations of Article 2).

In the Celniku case, the applicants' brother was killed by a bullet, in 2001; this was also the case of the applicant’s son in the Leonidis case, who was killed in 2000. In the two other cases the applicants received gunshot wounds during police operations in 1995 and 1998 respectively.

The European Court noted that at the material time the use of firearms was governed by legislation dating from 1943, since acknowledged to have been obsolete and incomplete in a modern, democratic society. It considered that the lack of clear rules relating to the use of force and of firearms could account for the rash initiatives of the police, which might not have happened if they had received adequate training and instructions. It is to be noted that in the Celniku case, the European Court expressed doubts as to the independence of the investigation, as it had been carried out by policemen working in the same department as the incriminated officers. It also indicated that certain shortcomings of the investigation were due to the absence of clear rules and instructions on the steps to be taken to guarantee that evidence is gathered promptly following a death during a police operation.

            - Ill-treatment by members of police forces and absence of effective investigation: The Bekos and Koutropoulos, Alsayed Allaham, Zelilof and Galotskin cases concern the ill-treatment of the applicants whilst in police-custody in 1998 and 2001 (substantial violations of Article 3). The Bekos and Koutropoulos, Zelilof, Petropoulou-Tsakiris and Galotskin cases also concern the absence of effective investigation of the applicants' credible allegations of police ill-treatment (procedural violations of Article 3). Finally, the Bekos and Koutropoulos and Petropoulou-Tsakiris cases also concern the authorities' failure to exercise their obligation to take all possible steps to investigate whether or not possible racist motives may have played a role in the events (violations of Article 14 combined with Article 3 in its procedural aspect).

The Galotskin case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

Summary of the measures (for more details see CM/Inf/DH (2009)16): the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction for the pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damages sustained. Concerning the continuing obligation of the defending State, following the findings of violations in the judgments, to carry out effective investigations into the events in question, the Greek authorities indicated that the possibility of carrying out a new investigation had been considered in all these cases. The Head of the Greek Police office, which is the competent authority as regards the administrative investigations indicated that it was impossible to carry out new administrative investigations in these cases, in particular in view of the fact that now the disciplinary offences are time-barred and that it is materially impossible to make up for the failures of the investigations which were raised by the European Court (for the main failures found by the Court see CM/Inf/DH (2009)16)

Concerning the criminal proceedings, the authorities indicated that Greek law did not allow the re-opening of proceedings which, at the time, ended with the acquittal of the policemen involved in the cases (Makaratzis, Celniku, Karagiannopoulos, Bekos and Koutropoulos and Alsayed Allaham cases). On the other hand, the files of the cases in which the criminal proceedings ended without a decision on the merits of the case will be re-examined by the competent State prosecutor (Zelilof and Petropoulou-Tsakiris cases).

In a letter of 10/06/2009 the authorities repeated that in the cases of Makaratzis, Celniku, Karagiannopoulos, Bekos and Koutropoulos, and Alsayed Allaham, new investigations would not be possible because the domestic criminal proceedings ended in the acquittal of the police officers accused.

On the other hand, the cases of Zelilof and Petropoulou-Tsakiris were sent by the General Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation to the competent state prosecutors. Concerning the Zelilof case, the prosecutor in charge of the file pointed out in writing that, the alleged crimes being time-barred, no new investigation would be possible. Concerning the Petropoulou-Tsakiris case, the prosecutor confirmed that new investigation would be carried out following the European Court’s judgment.

Concerning the civil proceedings for damages lodged by the applicant in the Alsayed Allaham case, the Greek authorities indicated that the Council of State granted the applicant’s appeal and sent the case back to the Athens Administrative Appeal’s Court (judgment n°327/2008).

• Concerning the civil proceedings for damages lodged by the applicant in the Galotskin case (§25 of the judgment) which appear to be pending, the authorities have not provided any information.

The 14-15/10/2008 a high level meeting took place in Athens between the secretariat and the Greek authorities during which the questions relating to the individual measures in these cases were also raised. Following this meeting the Greek authorities undertook to set up promptly and at the latest before June 2009 a committee with three independent members who would be competent to assess the possibility of opening new administrative investigations in cases where failures in investigations had been found by the European Court. In this respect, a Bill was brought before Parliament at the beginning of May 2009.

• To date, no information has been provided by the authorities regarding the possible establishment of such a Committee.

• Assessment: additional information is awaited on the resumed investigation in the Petropoulou-Tsakiris case, and on the results of the civil proceedings for damages brought by the applicants in the Alsayed Allaham as well as in the Galotskin  cases. Information is also urgently awaited on the developments of the legislative process concerning the setting up of the independent committee, mentioned above, and on the prerogatives that will be given to this committee. *

General measures:

            1) Use of lethal force by police officers in the absence of an appropriate legislative and administrative framework relating to the use of firearms and ill-treatment whilst under the responsibility of the police: The Greek authorities have taken a series of general measures to establish a modern, comprehensive legal framework for the use of force and firearms by policemen, as well as their overall conduct towards citizens:

(a) A new law on carrying and use of firearms by police officers, police training in the use of firearms entered into force in 2003. The new law contains specific, strict conditions for carrying and use of firearms by police officers. It states that the use of firearms is only authorised as a last resort when dealing with a situation in which there is imminent danger of death or serious injury. Further, presidential decree 189/2005, adopted in accordance with Article 5 of this law, provides that policemen's education and training in firearms will form part of their basic training in the police schools and includes further details of application.

(b) ThePolicemen's Code of Conduct (Presidential Decree 254/2004) entered into force in 2004. It contains guidance on police officers’ proper behaviour towards all citizens, in accordance with international human rights law.

            2) Absence of an effective investigation on the incriminated facts and failure in the obligations to investigate whether a racial motive may have played a role in the events:

(a) A new Disciplinary Code was adopted in September 2008 (presidential decree n°120/2008). This signified considerable progress in ensuring the initiation of an effective investigation into allegations of abuse of force by police. Most importantly, the new Code widens the scope of acts considered as disciplinary offences, imposes heavier sanctions in cases of torture and provides for the priority examination of complaints relating to disciplinary offences concerning civilians.

(b) The Policemen's Code of Conduct of 2004 provides that policemen in their conduct should avoid all “prejudices” due to an individual's “colour, sex, ethnic origin, ideology and religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, family situation, financial and social status or other characteristics” (Article 5§3). In addition, an extract of the Court's judgment in Bekos and Koutropoulos was reproduced in the circular of 24/05/06 issued to all police stations, mentioning the obligation to examine possible racist motives during criminal, administrative or police disciplinary investigations. In a 2007 circular, the Head of the Police issued a reminder to investigating officers of their obligation to examine whether racist motives played any role in cases of disproportionate use of arms or of ill-treatment. Further circular recalling policemen’s obligations in this regard were sent out in August 2008.

(c) Circulars were issued in 2001 and 2007 containing clear and detailed instructions on the steps to be taken to ensure that evidence is secured immediately after the events in relation to all deaths or injuries in the context of police operations and indicating that medical certificates issued in investigations of this kind must be assessed in the light of the European Court’s case-law relative to Article 3.

(d) In a letter dated 04/06/2008, the Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation, invited prosecutors to investigate any allegation of ill-treatment against the police with the greatest diligence, indicating that when prosecutors are informed of cases of ill-treatment or where they have reason to believe that ill-treatment has taken place, they must register the case and order a medical examination.

(e) The Greek authorities provided statistical data on administrative investigations concerning the period 2001-2005. Detailed statistics have also been provided concerning administrative and criminal investigations in 2005-2008.

            3) Awareness-raising measures:

(a) In the framework of the continuous training of police officers circulars have been issued by the Head of the Greek Police to all police stations, regarding the protection of human rights in police operations.

(b) In 2004 the United Nations Human Rights Centre's Pocketbook on Human Rights for the Police, was distributed while in 2007 a CPT Handbook was issued

            4) Training: Since 2005 human rights have formed part of both initial and ongoing police training. With regard to initial training, police training establishments provide courses on the European Convention on Human Rights, the European convention on the rights of Children, the Convention for the prevention of torture and other treaties in the human rights field. Also, a committee has been set up under the aegis of the National Human Rights Commission, tasked with the preparation of concrete proposals aiming in particular to help officers integrate the principles of human rights protection into their approach to the arrest and interrogation of suspects.

            5) Further publication and dissemination: The judgments in all these cases were transmitted, in Greek translation, by the State Legal Council to the Ministry of Justice and afterwards to the President of the Court of Cassation and the Prosecutor General to be sent out to all judicial authorities. All judgments have been published on the site of the State Legal council (www.nsk.gr).

However, similar problems in this field have been highlighted in more recent judgments (Stefanou, 2954/07, of 22/04/2010, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

6) Violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time (Galotskin): this issue is being examined in the context of the Manios group (70626/01, Section 4.2).

• Updated information is awaited on the impact of the measures adopted to remedy the shortcomings in the legislative and administrative framework governing both the use of firearms and the investigations carried out following alleged incidents of ill-treatment. Information is also awaited as to whether the adoption of further legislative and/or other measures is envisaged.

8249/07            Shuvaev, judgment of 29/10/2009, final on 29/01/2010

The case concerns the conditions under which the applicant was detained on remand from 26/09/2006 until 03/01/2007 at the Police Headquarters of Salonika.

The European Court held that the conditions of his detention, in particular the absence of facilities for outdoor exercise and the insufficient arrangements for meals, in combination with the duration of his detention, constituted inhuman and degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

The case also concerns the absence of sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s continuing detention from 16/03/2007 until 10/08/2007 (violation of Article 5§3). The European Court pointed out inter alia that, when ordering the extension of the remand beyond the initial six-month period, the Indictment Division of the Salonika Criminal Court motivated its decision with stereotyped formulae, repeating general and abstract elements already cited in its previous decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal for release. It also noted that no consideration had been given to alternative measures to detention on remand.

The applicant was released on 10/08/2007.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

8256/07            Tabesh, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

The case concerns the conditions under which the applicant was detained pending expulsion in the Police Headquarters of Salonika. The applicant was held there for about 3 months, having been arrested for irregularly entering Greek territory and possessing false papers.

The European Court held that the conditions of his detention, in particular the absence of facilities for outdoor exercise and the insufficient arrangements for meals, in combination with the duration of his detention, constituted degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

The case also concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending expulsion: the European Court noted that the fact that the applicant’s immediate expulsion was not possible, as he possessed no travel documents, combined with the inactivity of with the national authorities, rendered his detention unlawful (violation of Article 5§1(f) of the Convention).

In addition, the case concerns the absence of effective judicial control of the applicant’s detention. The European Court noted that the judicial authority failed to reply to the applicant’s argument that he could not be expelled. It also found that, in general, national law does not provide direct control of the legality of the detention of foreigners pending expulsion. Furthermore, national law (Law No 3386/2005) appears to make no distinction between the detention decision and that of expulsion, but rather the first is included in the second, while application for annulment or for suspension before the administrative courts cannot lift the measure of detention (violation of article 5§4).

The applicant was released on 28/03/2007 with an order to leave the country. He filed a request for political asylum on 16/04/2007, which was still pending when the judgment of the European Court was issued.

• Assessment: Similar shortcomings in this field have been highlighted in the case of S.D. (No. 53541/07, Section 4.2) and in a more recent judgment (A.A., no 12186/08, final on 22/10/2010). The issues raised in those judgments were discussed during bilateral consultations between the Greek authorities and the Secretariat held in Athens on 2 and 3/11/2010. Updated and detailed information is awaited on measures adopted or envisaged by the authorities for dealing with the issues raised.

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).

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

On 17/07/2007 the applicant was issued with an asylum seeker's certificate valid for six months, which has since been renewed twice, giving him the right to work and to receive medical assistance (see §27 of the judgment).

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

General measures:

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 09/06/2010): The European Court’s judgment has been sent out to the Ministry of Justice, as well as to the Ministry of Citizen’s Protection, with a request for further dissemination to all judicial and police authorities. It is also available, in Greek translation, on the State Legal Council’s website (www.nsk.gr).

• Assessment: Similar shortcomings in this field have been highlighted in more recent judgments (Tabesh, 8256/07, Section 4.2, A.A., no 12186/08, final on 22/10/2010). The issues raised in those judgments were discussed during bilateral consultations between the Greek authorities and the Secretariat held in Athens on 2 and 3/11/2010.

Updated and detailed information is awaited on measures adopted or envisaged by the authorities for dealing with the issues raised.

11919/03          Mohd, judgment of 27/04/2006, final on 27/07/2006

199/05              John, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007

The Mohd case concerns the unlawful character of the police detention, pending expulsion, of the applicant, a Bangladeshi national who had been sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for selling fake CDs.

The European Court found that, as no expulsion order had yet been issued in respect of the applicant, his detention from 04/12/00 to 11/12/00 was not based on any decision setting out the ground, length or modalities of detention. The Court further found the applicant’s detention from 09 to 17/02/01 was not provided by law, since on 09/02/01 the Supreme Administrative Court had provisionally suspended the administrative expulsion order (violation of Article 5§1(f)).

The John case concerns the unlawful extension of the detention of the applicant, a foreign national, who was subject to administrative expulsion. On 29/03/2004, after his release had been ordered following the expiry of the maximum period for detention of foreigners under expulsion allowed by Greek law, he was re-arrested while he was still at the police station where he had been detained (violation of Article 5§1).

The European Court considered that in reality the applicant never ceased to be a detainee since, first, he was always held in the police station, and secondly, his liberty consisted solely in signing the release document, which was never implemented. In addition, the new expulsion order repeated the reasons already stated in the first expulsion order and did not provide any new reason to justify the further detention while for three months (01/01 – 29/03/2004) the Greek authorities demonstrated no diligence in enforcing the expulsion order within the deadline provided by law (§§ 33 and 35 of the judgment).

Individual measures: The applicant in the Mohd case was acquitted on appeal in 2001 and in 2003 the Council of State annulled the administrative expulsion order. The applicant requested no just satisfaction from the European Court, having reserved his right to do so under domestic law (§27 of judgment). The applicant in the John case was expelled from Greece to Nigeria (his country of origin) on 20/06/2004 (§17 of the judgment). The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

• Assessment: no further measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Assessment: Following the Court’s judgment, the Aliens Law has been amended several times. The situation is currently being assessed to determine whether additional measures are necessary regarding the execution of these cases.

                        - 3 cases concerning poor conditions of detention on remand

32927/03           Kaja, judgment of 27/07/2006, final on 27/10/2006

30303/07           Siasios and others, judgment of 04/06/2009, final on 04/09/2009

24981/07           Vafiadis, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

The cases concern degrading treatment suffered by the applicants during detention as follows:

Kaja: detention for approximately three months (July 2003 – October 2003) at a police detention centre in Larissa pending judicial expulsion.

Case of Siasios and others (Georgios Kostoulas, Panayotis Kanelas, Ioannis Chatziefstathiou and Evaggelos Kalamaras): were arrested in 2006 for drugs-related offences and detained pending trial at the police station in Kateríni (northern Greece) a number of times between 2006 and 2007 for periods ranging from two months and 14 days (shortest period) to three months and 20 days (longest period). They were subsequently transferred to Salonika Prison (Greece).

Vafiadis case: the applicant was arrested in 2006 for selling drugs to a minor and was detained pending trial at the police headquarters in Salonika (northern Greece) for 97 days.

The European Court considered that the places where the applicants were held were not suitable for such long periods of detention. With no outdoor yard for walks or physical exercise, no indoor eating facilities, and no radio or television providing contact with the outside world, these detention centres, although providing acceptable conditions for short-term detention, were not adapted to the requirements of extended detention. The centres possessed certain features liable to produce feelings of isolation among detainees (§49 of Kaja judgment, §32 of Siasios and others judgment, §36 of Vafiadis judgment) (violations of Article 3).

In the Vafiadis judgment the Court also found that there were no relevant or sufficient grounds to justify the authorities' refusal to release the applicant from pre-trial detention after the first 6 months (violation of Article 5§3).

Individual measures:

Kaja case: The applicant was expelled in 2004.

Case of Siasios and others: the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Vafiadis case: the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: No individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 3

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letters of 04/06/2010 and 15/07/2010): The European Court’s judgments were sent to the Ministry of Justice and afterwards to the Prosecutor General and the President of the Court of Cassation for further dissemination to all judicial authorities. The Greek translation of the judgments was placed on the internet site of the Legal Office of the State (www.nsk.gr). In addition, the Chief of the Hellenic Police sent to all relevant police authorities a circular with a translation of the judgment attached, giving information about the violations found and directions for study, staff briefings and guidance, to promote the protection of the human rights of detainees and the improvement detention conditions. Emphasis was placed on the need to avoid repetition of such problems in the future.

            2) Violation of Article 5§3 (Vafiadis case): This case presents similarities to the Nerattini case (43529/07, Section 4.2).

•Information awaited: Given that the present case highlighted in particular the problem of excessively lengthy detention of detainees in police detention centres including aliens pending expulsion, information is awaited on further measures envisaged to prevent similar violations (see measures already adopted in this respect in section II.A of the appendix to the Resolution Dougoz (40907/98). Similar shortcomings in this field have been highlighted in the case of Shuvaev (No. 8249/07; Section 4.2).

27695/03          Serifis, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 02/02/2007

39780/06           Kotsaftis, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

The Serifis case concerns the authorities' delay in providing the applicant with appropriate medical treatment while in detention. The applicant, who was suffering from multiple sclerosis, was detained on remand in July 2002, then found guilty of belonging to a terrorist organisation. Even though he had informed the competent authorities of his serious illness shortly after his arrest, it was only in the summer of 2004 that appropriate treatment was provided in the form of regular medical care in a specialised hospital.

The European Court found that “the manner in which state authorities dealt with the applicant's health during the first two years of his detention subjected him to distress or hardship of an intensity that exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention” (§36 of judgment) (violation of Article 3).

The case concerns also a violation of the principle of equality of arms in that in 2003 the indictment chamber of the Athens Appeal Court dismissed the applicant's request to appear before it when deciding on the extension of his pre-trial detention (violation of Article 5§4).

The Kotsaftis case concerns inhuman treatment undergone by the applicant due to the Greek authorities’ failure in their obligation to ensure that he was given appropriate medical care during his detention from 9/06/2006 to 15/03/2007 (violation of Article 3).

The applicant was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to 13 years’ four months’ imprisonment. He was suffering from cirrhosis of the liver caused by chronic hepatitis B. The European Court considered that between August 2003 and January 2004, and from 15/03/2007 onwards, the applicant had received the appropriate treatment and the medical supervision required by his state of health. However, with regard to the period between the 9/06/2006 and 15/03/2007, the Court found that, contrary to the findings of an exert report drawn up in September 2006, the applicant had been kept in detention without being given special diet or treatment with the appropriate drugs, and had not undergone check-ups in a specialist medical centre. The Court noted in particular that an operation scheduled initially in July 2006, was not performed until a year later. It also deplored the fact that a person suffering from a serious and highly infectious disease had been detained along with ten other prisoners in a cell measuring 24 m².

Finally the Court underlined that, despite the fact that the competent authorities had been informed of his state of health and the need for appropriate treatment, it was not until measures had been indicated by the Court applying Rule 39 of its Rules, that the applicant began to receive regular check-ups. 

Individual measures: In these cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

1) Serifis case: The applicant was released and placed under court supervision in February 2005 so that he could receive regular medical care.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems to be necessary.

            2) Kotsaftis case:

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 07/04/2009): The applicant was released on 09/03/2009following and order by the Council of the Patras Court. Throughout the period at issue, until his release, the applicant was in hospital.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems to be necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 3:

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letters of 17/12/2007 and 07/04/2009): Dissemination of the European Court’s judgments has been confirmed: the Ministry of Justice has sent a translation of the Serifis judgment to the President and the Prosecutor before the Court of Cassation with a view to ensuring that all prosecutors are adequately informed of how similar cases should be handled. The certified translation of the judgments is also available on the internet site of the State Judicial Council (www.nsk.gr).

• The need for further measures is being assessed.

2) Violation of Article 5§4: The case Serifis is similar to that of Kotsaridis (Final Resolution ResDH(2006)54) which led to a change of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with the European Court's case-law.

60457/00          Kosmopoulou, judgment of 05/02/04, final on 05/05/04[32]

50796/07           Tsourlakis, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to private and family life in that in 2007he was denied effective access to a report on his child’s living conditions drawn up by the competent national Social Service (the Athens Child Welfare Society) in the course of judicial proceedings regarding the grant of custody to one of the parents (violation of Article 8).

The European Court noted that the domestic law on the use made of welfare reports was less than clear. Moreover, the applicant had had a legitimate claim to be informed of the use made of the details he had provided for the purpose of the compiling of the report.

The European Court found that the government had not given reasons for the refusal to allow the applicant to consult the report and had not adduced any compelling reasons to justify the failure to disclose the contents of the document, which contained personal information of direct concern to the applicant. Accordingly, the authorities had not ensured effective observance of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life.

The child, born in 1989, has reached the age of majority. The custody was granted to the mother at all levels of jurisdiction and the applicant had filed no cassation appeal against the final judgment of the Court of Appeal.

• 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, who 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.

• The Greek authorities submitted an action report on 15/06/2010 which is currently being assessed.

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 life due to the dismissal of their suit for damages related to photographs taken of their newborn child without their consent in the sterile unit of a private clinic, as part of a photographic service offered to clients (violation of Article 8). The European Court 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.

• The action report submitted by the authorities is currently being assessed.

Regarding the violation of Article 6§1, the situation is being assessed in the light of the issues raised in other similar cases (e.g. Roumeliotis, 53361/07, and Petropoulos, 55484/07, Section 4.2).

                        - 3 cases mainly concerning freedom of expression[33]

19331/05          Katrami, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

28504/05           Kanellopoulou, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 31/03/2008

24444/07           Kydonis, judgment of 02/04/2009, final on 02/07/2009

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.

- 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 34144/05    Emin and others, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 01/12/2008 26698/05    Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008 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. In a letter dated 30/09/2010, the applicant’s representative indicated that the applicants had lodged an appeal before the Court of Cassation and that the case would be probably heard towards the end of 2011. 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. According to information provided by the applicants’ representative in his letter dated 27/09/2010, the hearing before the Court of Cassation is scheduled for 7/10/2011. 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 was planned for 13/01/2010 (date also confirmed by the representative of the applicants, see DD (2009)572). 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. According to a letter from the applicants’ representative dated 24/09/2010, the hearing before the Court of Appeal took place on 24/09/2010. 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, Section 4.2). 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 by “the ABTTF” [DD(2009)609] and the national authorities, 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. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Thrace (7/12/2009); the case will be heard by the Court of Cassation on 7/10/2011. The Greek authorities provided 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”. In addition, the authorities indicated that applications for registration of minority associations (31) were accepted in their entirety. At their 1086th meeting (June 2010), the Deputies adopted the following decision: “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). “ • Bilateral consultations between the Greek authorities and the Secretariat took place in Athens on 2 and 3 November 2010. The Secretariat will report to the Committee of Ministers on the results of these consultations at the 1100th meeting. The Deputies, 1.            took note of the bilateral consultations that took place between the Greek authorities and the Secretariat in Athens on 2 and 3 November 2010 with a view to discussing in particular the execution of these three judgments of the European Court; 2.            took note of the latest developments concerning the national procedures relating to the registration of the three associations concerned which were initiated following the European Court’s judgment, namely that appeals in cassation had been lodged against the national decisions in the Bekir-Ousta and Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis cases and that the hearing in the Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis case has been scheduled for 7/10/2011, whilst the date of the hearing in the Bekir-Ousta case has not yet been fixed; 3.            noted, in this respect, that under national law, in the context of civil proceedings, the request for a hearing date to be fixed, or for the acceleration of the examination of a case is made on the applicants’ initiative; 4.            recalled that the applications submitted by the applicants before the Greek courts have faced, until now, procedural obstacles having prevented their examination on the merits; 5.            noted however that according to the information provided by the Greek authorities, the recent case-law of the Court of Cassation could lead to an examination on the merits of the applicants’ request; 6.            also noted the updated information provided by the Greek authorities that between January 2008 and October 2010, 32 out of 33 requests for the registration of associations whose title includes the adjective “minority” or indicates in some way that it is of minority origin, were accepted; 7.            recalled the firm commitment of the Greek authorities to implementing fully and completely the judgments under consideration without excluding any avenue in that respect; 8.            decided to resume examination of these items in the light of developments before the Court of Cassation and at the latest at their 1128th meeting (December 2011) (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. Dans une lettre datée du 30/09/2010, le représentant des requérants a indiqué qu’ils ont introduit un pourvoi en cassation devant la Cour de cassation et que l’audience sera probablement fixée vers la fin 2011. 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. Selon les informations données par le représentant des requérants dans sa lettre du 27/09/2010, l’audience relative à leur pourvoi en cassation a été fixée au 7/10/2011. 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 avaient déposé une nouvelle demande; l’audience était fixée au 13/01/2010 (date confirmée aussi par le représentant des requérants, voir DD(2009)572). Ce recours a été rejeté par la décision n° 44/2010 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. Selon une lettre envoyée par le représentant des requérants en date du 24/09/2010, l’audience devant la Cour d’appel de Thrace a eu lieu le 24/09/2010. 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, rubrique 4.2). 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 par « l’ABTTF »  [DD(2009)609] et les autorités nationales, une nouvelle association dénommée « 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. Ce refus a été confirmé par la Cour d’appel de Thrace (7/12/2009) ; l’affaire sera jugée par la Cour de cassation le 7/10/2011. 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 dénommée « Association minoritaire à but culturel, éducatif et sportif de la région d’Alonotopos à Komotini ». De plus, les autorités ont indiqué que l’intégralité des demandes d’enregistrement d’associations minoritaires (31) a été acceptée. Lors de leur 1086e réunion (juin 2010), les Délégués ont adopté la décision suivante : « 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). » • Des consultations bilatérales entre les autorités grecques et le Secrétariat ont eu lieu à Athènes les 2 et 3 novembre 2010. Le Secrétariat fera rapport au Comité des Ministres sur les résultats de ces consultations lors de la 1100e réunion. Les Délégués, 1.             prennent note des consultations bilatérales entre les autorités grecques et le Secrétariat les 2 et 3 novembre 2010 à Athènes en vue de discuter en particulier de l’exécution de ces trois arrêts de la Cour européenne ; 2.             prennent note des derniers développements concernant les procédures nationales relatives à l’enregistrement des trois associations concernées, entamées suite à l’arrêt de la Cour européenne à savoir que les décisions nationales relatives aux affaires Bekir-Ousta et Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis ont fait l’objet de pourvois en cassation et que l’audience dans l’affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis a été fixée au 7/10/2011 et que celle dans l’affaire Bekir-Ousta n’a pas encore été fixée ; 3.             notent à cet égard que, selon le droit national, dans le cadre d’une procédure civile, la demande de fixation d’une date d’audience ou d’accélération de l’examen d’une affaire se fait à l’initiative des requérants ; 4.             rappellent que les demandes introduites par les requérants devant les juridictions grecques se sont heurtées, jusqu’à présent, à des obstacles procéduraux ayant empêché leur examen au fond ; 5.             relèvent cependant que, selon les informations fournies par les autorités grecques, la jurisprudence récente de la Cour de cassation pourrait conduire à un examen au fond des demandes des requérants ; 6.             notent également les informations à jour fournies par les autorités grecques selon lesquelles, entre janvier 2008 et octobre 2010, 32 sur 33 demandes d’enregistrement d’associations portant dans leur titre l’adjectif « minoritaire » ou faisant valoir de quelque manière que ce soit une origine minoritaire ont été acceptées ; 7.             rappellent 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 ; 8.             décident de reprendre l'examen de ces points à la lumière des développements devant la Cour de cassation et au plus tard lors de leur 1128e réunion (décembre 2011) (DH)

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. In particular, the Court concluded that, in spite of the authorities’ willingness to educate Roma children, the conditions of school enrolment for those children and their placement in special preparatory classes – in an annexe to the main school building – ultimately resulted in discrimination against them (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 noted that Greek law recognised the specific nature of the Roma community’s situation by facilitating the school enrolment procedure for their children. However, in this specific case the authorities should have recognised the particularity of the Roma community’s situation and should have facilitated the enrolment in primary school. 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. In the light of the information provided by the authorities on 19/01/2010, 29/03/2010 and 07/07/2010, the preparatory classes created in 2005 stopped functioning following the Court's judgment, at the end of the school year 2007-2008. Further, as schooling in Greece is compulsory for all children from six to fifteen, the applicants’ children, who are older than fifteen are no longer in the compulsory schooling system. The rest of them were enrolled for the school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 in the 12th primary school which was created on 25/01/2008 in the region of Aspropyrgos. The Psari area, where the Roma community of Aspropyrgos resides, falls within the catchment area of the 12th school. This school functions under the same conditions as the other 11 primary schools of the area, with the same enrolment criteria. The competent services chose to place the 12th primary school in a separate building. To this effect, prefabricated installations were chosen for temporary accommodation of the classes of the 12th school which is annexed to the 10th primary school. Much work was completed in April 2010 (installation of toilets, showers, air-conditioning in the classes and a canteen). The municipality of Aspropyrgos has appointed a supervisor to ensure order at school premises after the departure of the children. The transport of Roma children between camps and the school takes place regularly by a bus provided by the municipality, which has also been asked by the school authorities to designate an accompanying person (not appointed yet). The applicants’ representative in his letters dated 10/12/2009, 02/08/2010, 25/08/2010 and 1/10/2010 noted that Roma children should be integrated in the 11th primary school, which is closer to the Roma community, instead of the 12th primary school. Both the authorities and the applicants’ representative highlighted the absenteeism of the Roma children in 2008 and 2009. In their letter of 19/01/2010, the authorities also mentioned that parents of non-Roma children who should be enrolled in the 12th primary ordinary school have decided to place their children in private schools. The long-term measures taken to address this phenomenon as well as absenteeism are considered under general measures. General measures: The authorities noted that as provided in relevant circulars, school classes should not have more than 50% of children of Roma origin. On 23/03/2010, a new programme “Active inclusion of Roma children in national education” was launched by the Ministry of Education. This programme is under the aegis of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Education and is co-financed by the European Social Fund. The aim of the programme is to fight absenteeism of Roma children and to allow them effectively and regularly to integrate in national education. The means provided to this effect include the appointment of special mediators, appropriate pedagogical training of teachers and specific support to pupils, parents and teachers. Beneficiary schools are those with a significant number of Roma children. It is also provided that schooling activities will be expanded outside the school framework and that support classes will be introduced, as a complement to regular classes. • The information regarding the violation of Article 13 is currently under assessment. • The developments regarding this case were considered during bilateral consultations between the Greek authorities and the Secretariat held in Athens on 2 and 3/11/2010. The Deputies, 1.             recalled that, at their 1072nd meeting (December 2009), they had noted with interest the information provided by the Greek authorities on the individual measures taken to allow the schooling of the applicants’ children in ordinary classes, as well as on general measures aimed at including Roma children in the education system in a non-discriminatory manner; 2.             took note of the information provided recently by the Greek authorities as well as of the additional information presented at the meeting on individual and general measures; 3.             welcomed the information provided by the Greek authorities about the recent developments further to the launching in 2010, by the Ministry of Education, of a new programme regarding Active inclusion of Roma children in national education which provides for Roma Mediators and Social Workers as well as support classes for Roma children and enhanced schooling activities, including in the Roma settlements; 4.             encouraged the Greek authorities to accelerate the procedure of implementation of this programme; 5.             noted with satisfaction the information given by the Greek authorities to the effect that they will provide the Committee of Ministers with a consolidated action plan containing all the information already provided as well as up-dated information on the progress of the program; 6.             decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their 1115th meeting (June 2011) (DH), in the light of the consolidated action plan to be provided by the Greek authorities.

32526/05   Sampanis et autres, arrêt du 05/06/2008, définitif le 05/09/2008 L’affaire concerne la non-scolarisation des enfants des requérants pour l’année scolaire 2004-2005, puis leur scolarisation, en 2005, dans des classes préparatoires spéciales. En particulier, la Cour a conclu qu’en dépit de la volonté des autorités de scolariser les enfants Roms, les modalités d’enregistrement des enfants en cause à l’école et leur affectation dans des classes préparatoires spéciales - accueillies dans une annexe au bâtiment principal de l’école - ont en définitive eu pour résultat de les discriminer (violation de l’article 14 combiné avec l’article 2 du Protocole n° 1). L’affaire concerne également le défaut de recours effectif pour obtenir un redressement approprié de la violation susmentionnée (violation de l’article 13). S’agissant de la non-scolarisation des enfants en 2004-2005, la Cour européenne a noté que le droit grec reconnaît la particularité de la situation des Roms, en facilitant la procédure d’inscription de leurs enfants à l’école. Toutefois, dans le cas d’espèce les autorités auraient dû reconnaître la particularité de la situation de la communauté rom et faciliter l’inscription à l’école primaire. Or, même si les autorités n’ont pas explicitement refusé d’inscrire les enfants, elles ont omis d’y procéder, en dépit de la volonté explicite des parents de les scolariser, manifestée auprès des autorités scolaires compétentes. Quant aux classes préparatoires spéciales situées dans une annexe de l’école primaire dans lesquelles les enfants des requérants avaient été placés en 2005, la Cour européenne a estimé que les autorités compétentes ne s’étaient pas fondées sur un critère unique et clair pour choisir les enfants qui devaient y être accueillis. Elle a noté en particulier que les autorités n’avaient pas fait état de tests adéquats auxquels les enfants concernés auraient été soumis aux fins d’évaluation de leurs aptitudes ou de leurs difficultés éventuelles d’apprentissage. En outre, bien que l’objectif affiché de ces classes fût que les élèves concernés se retrouvent à niveau pour intégrer en temps utile les classes ordinaires, aucun exemple n’a été cité (parmi les plus de 50 élèves concernés) d’élève qui aurait intégré les classes ordinaires. De surcroît, il n’avait pas été établi qu’il existait des tests d’évaluation auxquels les élèves d’origine rom auraient dû être périodiquement soumis pour permettre aux autorités scolaires d’apprécier leur aptitude à intégrer les classes ordinaires, sur la base de données objectives et non d’évaluations approximatives. La Cour a européenne souligné l’importance de la mise en place d’un système adéquat d’évaluation des aptitudes des enfants présentant des lacunes d’apprentissage en vue de leur remise à niveau, surtout s’agissant d’élèves appartenant à une minorité ethnique, afin de garantir leur placement éventuel dans des classes spéciales sur la base de critères non discriminatoires. En outre, étant donné les incidents racistes provoqués par les parents des élèves non rom qui ont eu lieu, l’instauration d’un tel système aurait fait naître chez les requérants le sentiment que le placement de leurs enfants dans des classes préparatoires n’était pas inspiré par des motifs ségrégatifs. Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a accordé une satisfaction équitable aux requérants au titre du préjudice moral. A la lumière des informations fournies par les autorités, les 19/01/2010, 29/03/2010 et 7/07/2010, suite à l’arrêt de la Cour, les classes préparatoires spéciales créées en 2005, ont cessé de fonctionner à la fin de l’année scolaire 2007-2008. En outre, comme la scolarisation en Grèce est obligatoire pour les enfants de six à quinze ans, les enfants des requérants qui sont âgés de plus de quinze ans ne sont plus concernés. Les autres enfants ont été inscrits, pour les années scolaires 2008-2009 et 2009-2010 à la 12e école primaire qui a été créée le 25/01/2008 dans la région d’Aspropyrgos. La région de Psari, où réside la communauté rom d'Aspropyrgos, est du ressort de la 12e école. Cette dernière fonctionne dans les mêmes conditions que les onze autres écoles primaires de la région avec les mêmes conditions d’inscription. Les services compétents ont choisi de placer la 12e école dans un bâtiment séparé. A cet égard, des installations préfabriquées ont été choisies pour le placement temporaire des classes de la 12e école qui est annexée à la 10e école. Une grande série de travaux ont été achevés en avril 2010 (installation de toilettes, de douches, climatisation pour les classes et une cantine). La municipalité d’Aspropryrgos a désigné un surveillant pour assurer l’ordre dans les locaux de l’école après le départ des enfants. Le transport des enfants d’origine rom entre les campements et l’école est assuré régulièrement par un bus qui est offert par la municipalité. Les autorités de l’école ont demandé à cette dernière de désigner un accompagnateur (pas encore désigné). Le représentant des requérants, dans ses lettres des 10/12/2009, 02/08/2010 et 1/10/2010, a noté que les enfants d’origine Rom auraient dû être scolarisés dans la 11e école qui est plus proche de la communauté Rom, au lieu de la 12e école. Tant les autorités que le représentant des requérants ont souligné l’absentéisme des enfants Roms durant les années 2008 et 2009. Dans leur lettre du 19/01/2010, les autorités ont également indiqué que les parents des enfants qui ne sont pas d’origine Rom et qui auraient dû être inscrits à la 12e école primaire ont décidé de placer leurs enfants dans des écoles privées. Les mesures à long terme adoptées en vue de remédier à ce phénomène ainsi qu’à l’absentéisme sont examinées dans le cadre des mesures générales. Mesures de caractère général : Les autorités ont noté que, ainsi que prévu par des circulaires pertinentes, les classes ne doivent pas avoir plus de 50% d’enfants d’origine rom. Le 23/03/2010, un nouveau programme « Adhésion active des enfants Roms à l’éducation nationale » a été lancé par le Ministère de l’Education. Ce programme est sous l’égide du Secrétaire Général du Ministère de l’Education et est cofinancé par le Fond Social européen. L’objectif du programme est de combattre l’absentéisme des enfants Roms et de leur permettre d’intégrer l’éducation nationale de manière efficace et régulière. Les moyens prévus à cet effet concernent la mise en place de médiateurs spécialisés, la formation pédagogique appropriée des professeurs et le soutien spécifique pour les élèves, les parents ainsi que les professeurs. Les écoles bénéficiaires sont celles comprenant un nombre important d’enfants Roms. Il est aussi également prévu que les activités scolaires soient étendues au-delà du cadre scolaire et que des cours de soutien soient introduits en tant que complément aux classes régulières.   • Les informations relatives à la violation de l’article 13 sont actuellement en cours d’évaluation. • Les développements dans cette affaire ont été examinées lors des consultations bilatérales entre les autorités grecques et le Secrétariat à Athènes les 2 et 3/11/2010. Les Délégués, 1.             rappellent avoir pris, lors de leur 1072e réunion (décembre 2009), note avec intérêt des informations fournies par les autorités grecques sur les mesures individuelles adoptées en vue de la scolarisation des enfants des requérants dans des classes ordinaires, ainsi que sur les mesures générales visant l’inclusion, de manière non discriminatoire, des enfants roms dans le système éducatif ; 2.             prennent note des informations fournies récemment par les autorités grecques, ainsi que des informations supplémentaires présentées en réunion à propos des mesures individuelles et générales; 3.             se félicitent des informations fournies par les autorités grecques sur les développements récents suite au lancement en 2010, par le Ministère de l'Éducation, d'un nouveau programme Adhésion active des enfants Roms à l’éducation nationale qui prévoit la mise en place de médiateurs roms et de travailleurs sociaux, ainsi que de cours de soutien pour les enfants roms, et le renforcement des activités scolaires, y compris dans les camps des Roms ; 4.             encouragent les autorités grecques à accélérer la procédure de mise en œuvre de ce programme ; 5.             notent avec satisfaction que les autorités grecques ont annoncé qu'elles fourniraient au Comité des Ministres un plan d'action consolidé, comportant l'ensemble des informations déjà fournies ainsi que des données actualisées sur l'état d'avancement du programme ; 6.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point, au plus tard lors de leur 1115e réunion (juin 2011) (DH), à la lumière du plan d'action consolidé à fournir par les autorités grecques.

43529/07           Nerattini, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 18/03/2009

This case concerns a violation of the principle of presumption of the applicant’s innocence due to the reasoning used by the Samos Criminal Court in August 2007 to reject his request for release (violation of Article 6§2). The applicant had been arrested for receiving a package containing cannabis. The domestic court considered that the significant number of antiques found in the applicant’s home indicated a propensity to commit further offences related to antiques. The European Court found that this reasoning reflected the opinion that the applicant was guilty of misappropriation of antiques even though at that time he had been neither formally accused nor tried for such offences.

The case also concerns the lack of relevant and sufficient grounds to justify the applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention (violation of Article 5§3). The European Court considered that even if the suspicion that the applicant committed the offences he was charged with could initially justify his pre-trial detention, this ground was not sufficient to justify the detention for the whole period in question (August 2007- March 2008). The Court also considered that the risk of absconding put forward by the authorities could justify in principle the applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention, on the condition that it was based on precise facts, which was not so in this case. The Court also noted that the Samos Criminal Court did not examine the possibility of guaranteeing the applicant’s presence through the adoption of alternative measures. The Court finally regretted that it took six months before for the domestic court considered elements in favour of the applicant’s release on bail, event though they already existed from the start.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It rejected his request in respect of the pecuniary damage (§ 44). The applicant was released on bail in March 2008.

• Assessment: In these circumstances, no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information provided by the authorities is currently being assessed.

35522/04           Stavropoulos Vassilios, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007

The case concerns a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence in that in 2004 the administrative court of appeal and the Council of State had expressed doubts as to the applicant’s innocence in their decisions on the annulment by administrative courts of his right to social housing on the grounds of deception and making a false declaration of his wealth. These doubts were expressed despite the fact that the applicant had been acquitted in criminal proceedings concerning the same matter (violation of Article 6§2). 

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

• Assessment: No further measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on the wide dissemination of the judgment to the competent administrative and judicial authorities.

42132/06          Paraponiaris, judgment of 25/09/2008, final on 06/04/2009 and of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for the presumption of innocence.

The applicant was prosecuted for smuggling petroleum products. The Indictment Division abandoned the criminal proceedings because they were time-barred, but fined him, in April 2006, about 54,086 EUR because it had been “objectively established that he had committed the offence of smuggling”.

The European Court considered that the terms used by the Indictment Division made a distinction, which the Court deemed artificial, between a finding of guilt and a finding that an offence had been “objectively” established. The reasoning of the Indictment Division resembled a declaration of guilt and was therefore incompatible with the presumption of innocence (violation of Article 6§2).

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial: the European Court considered that the Indictment Division had not given the applicant full guarantees in respect of the requirements of a fair trial and the rights of the defence. The Court noted in particular that the applicant had been fined following a hearing which had not been held in public and at which he had been neither present nor represented (violations of Articles 6§§1 and 3 c).

Individual measures: On 22/10/2009, the European Court delivered its judgment on just satisfaction rejecting the applicant’s claim in its entirety. When the European Court delivered its judgment on the merits, the applicant had not paid the fine imposed on him by the Indictment Division. All domestic proceedings have been closed.

• Assessment: No further measure seems necessary.

General measures: As regards the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, this case presents similarities to that of Diamantides (71563/01) (Manios group, Section 4.2)

• The situation of these cases is currently being assessed.

- 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).

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 09/07/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently underway aimed at securing the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee

- 2 cases concerning the right of access to a court (excessive formalism of the Court of Cassation)

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

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the excessive formalism of Court of Cassation in 2006 and 2007 respectively, in declaring inadmissible their appeals against decisions in criminal proceedings to which they were parties: in the Louli case the applicant was a civil party, in the Kallergis case the applicant was the accused (violations of Article 6§1).

In the Louli case, the applicant had lodged a complaint on her own behalf and as legal representative of her husband (who was senile) alleging that money had fraudulently been removed from their joint bank account. When she lodged an appeal after her husband’s death, she stated that she was acting on her own behalf and as his sole heir. However, the Court of Cassation, noting that this double capacity was not mentioned in the record of deposit prepared by the registrar, denied her capacity to appeal and found her appeal inadmissible.

The European Court noted in particular that the Court of Cassation had penalised the applicant for a mistake made when she lodged her appeal, when it was clear from the file that the applicant was not only acting on her own behalf but also as her husband’s sole heir.

In the Kallergis case, the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended, and to a fine of 15 000 EUR, for destroying antiquities. His appeal on points of law was rejected as inadmissible by the Court of Cassation due to a mistake made by the registrar of the Criminal Court of Rethymno when completing the formalities provided by law.

Individual measures:

            1) Louli case: the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages sustained.

• The authorities’ assessment would be appreciated as to whether other individual measures are required.

2) Kallergis case: the applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction within the deadline fixed by the Court. The applicant is entitled to reopening of the proceedings following the judgment of the European Court, in accordance with Article 525§1.5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary in this case.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 12/05/2009): The text of the European Court’s judgments was sent to the Ministry of Justice and subsequently to the Prosecutor General and the President of the Court of Cassation for further dissemination to all judicial authorities. The Greek translation of the judgment was placed on the official site of the Legal Office of the State (www.nsk.gr).

• Examples would be welcome of recent case-law of the Court of Cassation in line with the European Court’s findings.

11801/04           Tsalkitzis, judgment of 16/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right of access to court in that the Parliament (in 2002) and the Speaker (in 2004) rejected a request by the Prosecutor before the Court of Cassation to lift the parliamentary immunity of a member of parliament, elected in 2000, against whom the applicant, a property developer, had lodged a complaint for blackmail, abuse of office and subornation, offences allegedly committed in 1997 when the parliamentarian had been mayor (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that in such cases the lack of a clear link with a parliamentary activity calls for a narrow interpretation of the notion of proportionality between the aim pursued and the means employed, especially when the restrictions of the right of access to a court emanate from a decision of a political organ (§49 of judgment). Besides, the Court considered that the suspension of every criminal proceeding against a member of parliament during their parliamentary mandate would result in a substantial amount of time elapsing between the commission of the acts complained of and the opening of criminal proceedings that would render the latter uncertain, particularly regarding evidence (§50 of judgment).

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

• Bilateral contacts are under way to assess whether further individual measures are needed.

General measures: It may be noted that according to Article 62§1 of the Constitution, during the parliamentary term, members of parliament may not be prosecuted, arrested, imprisoned or otherwise confined without prior leave granted by Parliament. Pursuant to Article 83 of Parliament's Regulations, requests for leave to prosecute a member of parliament are first examined by the Parliament's professional ethics committee which should take into account, inter alia, whether the act complained of is linked to a political activity of the member of parliament (see §§16-17 of judgment). In this context, it is worth noting that in similar cases against Italy (see Cordova case, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03; De Jorio case, judgment of 03/06/04, final on 10/11/04, section 6.2), there has been a change in the case-law of the Italian Constitutional Court, according to which it is no longer possible to extend the scope of parliamentary immunity to acts and statements which are not connected with parliamentary duties.

The Greek authorities have indicated that the European court’s judgment has been notified in Greek translation to the Speaker of Parliament for transmission to parliamentary committees as well as to all members. The judgment has also been sent to the Ministry of Justice and subsequently to the President of the Court of Cassation and the Prosecutor General for dissemination to judicial authorities. The text is also available on the internet site of the State Judicial Council (www.nsk.gr).

• Assessment: It transpires from the European Court’s judgment that the violation found does not originate in the legal texts relating to the immunity of members of Parliament, but rather to the way in which they were applied here. This being the case, and taking account of the direct effect given in Greek law to the judgments of the European Court, publication and dissemination of the judgment in this case should constitute sufficient measures of execution. This said, examples of changed practice of parliamentary bodies in this area would be helpful, given that the European Court’s case-law (judgment in Cordova against Italy, see above) had been unsuccessfully invoked before them (§§12-15 of the judgment).

53361/07           Roumeliotis, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

55484/07           Petropoulos, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court, in that the Court of Cassation declared their cassation appeals inadmissible (judgments of 2007) (violations of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the rule applied by the Court of Cassation to dismiss the applicants’ appeal was a principle enshrined in its case-law and arose from the specific nature of the Court of Cassation’s role, namely supervision of whether the law had been observed. However, in declaring inadmissible the submissions in question on the ground that the applicants had not clearly specified the facts of the case on which the Court of Appeal had based its judgment, the Court of Cassation had taken an excessively formalistic approach, thus preventing the applicants from having the merits of their allegations examined by the Court of Cassation. That limitation on the applicants’ right of access to a court had not been proportionate to the aim sought, namely to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice

The cases also concern the length of civil proceedings lodged by the applicants (violations of Article 6§1). The Roumeliotis case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

2898/03            N.T. Giannousis and Kliafas Brothers S.A., judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 23/05/2007[34]

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.

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 09/07/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently under way to secure the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee.

- 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

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

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in that in 2003 and 2007 respectively the Court of Cassation refused to examine their complaints related to the taking of evidence by the Court of Appeal, which were based on the sole ground of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The Court of Cassation found that the “violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention [did] not constitute an independent ground of appeal on points of law”.

The European Court found that the consequence of these findings was that the guarantees provided by Article 6 had not been taken into consideration and had not been applied in these cases, which led to the applicants’ conviction and suspended prison sentence (violation of Article 6§1 and Article 6§3 in the Perlala case).

Individual measures: In the Perlala case the European Court noted that the best redress for the violation found would be new proceedings or reopening of the proceedings upon application by the interested party (§35). The Greek authorities confirmed this information (letter of 25/10/2007).

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

In the Karavelatzis case, the applicant made no specific claim for just satisfaction.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: It is noted that even though in principle the Convention and the European Court’s case law enjoy direct effect in Greek law and practice (see e.g. appendix to Final Resolution ResDH(2004)82 on the Tsirlis and Kouloumpas and Georgiadis cases), the Court of Cassation has held to date that the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention is not an independent ground of appeal on points of law and may only be invoked in combination with other grounds provided in Article 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (§17 of judgment).

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 25/10/2007): The text of the judgment was sent to the Ministry of Justice on 26/06/2007 and afterwards to the Prosecutor General and the President of the Cassation Court for further dissemination to all judicial authorities. The Greek translation of the judgment was placed on the internet site of the Legal Office of the State (www.nsk.gr). The authorities pointed out that the violation in this case was due to the reasoning given by the Court of Cassation in its judgment, and therefore publication and broad dissemination of the judgment would prevent similar violations.

• Examples would be welcome of recent case-law of the Court of Cassation in line with the European Court’s findings.

44858/04           Markoulaki No. 1, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007[35]

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 03/02/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently under way to secure the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee.

72081/01          Mavroudis, judgment of 22/09/2005, final on 22/12/2005[36]

- 12 cases mainly concerning failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic judgments

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

17556/08           Matthaiou and others, judgment of 18/02/2010, final on 18/05/2010

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

48380/07           Pechlivanidis and others, judgment of 18/02/2010, final on 18/05/2010

14263/04           Rompoti and Rompotis, judgment of 25/01/2007, final on 09/07/2007

6036/07            Union des Cliniques privées de Grèce and others, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The cases of Beka-Koulocheri, Georgoulis, Gikas Panagiotis and Gikas Georgios, Kanellopoulos, Moschopoulos-Veïnoglou, Rompoti and Rompotis and Pechlivanidis 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 cases of Clinique psychiatrique “Athina” Vrilisson Sarl and Clinique Lyrakou SA and of Union des Cliniques privées de Grèce and others 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 the Kanellopoulos cases also relate to the absence of a domestic remedy capable of remedying this situation (violation of Article 13).

The Matthaiou case relates to the non-payment of sums awarded by the national courts as compensation for expropriation.

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 Matthaiou case the European Court ordered the enforcement of the national court’s decision (payment of a sum awarded as compensation) and in addition awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

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 cases Clinique psychiatrique “Athina” Vrilisson Sarl and Clinique Lyrakou SA and Union des Cliniques privées de Grèce and others, the domestic judicial decisions were enforced in 2007 and 2008 respectively (§§35 and 48 of the judgments), but some reservations were expressed as far as full compliance is concerned, since new judicial proceedings are pending before the Greek Conseil d’ Etat.

In the case of Rompoti and Rompotis the authorities in a letter dated 23/02/2010, provided information to the effect that the administration was unable to comply compliance (modification of the plan drawing regarding the specific property of the applicants), without the applicants' co-operation. Although they have been invited to provide certain documents regarding their property which are needed in accordance with the law, they have not responded.

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, Matthaiou and Pechlivanidis. Information would be welcome on any further steps taken in the Rompoti and Rompotis case, as well as on the pending proceedings before the Greek Conseil d’ Etat in the cases of Clinique psychiatrique “Athina” Vrilisson Sarl and Clinique Lyrakou SA and of Union des Cliniques privées de Grèce and others.

General measures:

1) Violations of Articles 6 (non-enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions) and 13 (lack of effective remedy): 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.

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 19/03/2010): Regarding the scope of Law No. 3068/2002 and the implementation of the mechanism set up by it, the following elements should be noted in particular:

A. Content of the Law: The law establishes the administration’s obligation to comply with the decisions of all courts. A three-member committee (Council of Compliance) is established to examine applications by persons complaining of the failure to enforce decisions taken in their favour.

The Council requests information from the relevant public authority regarding the progress of the case.

If it finds that there has been a failure to comply or insufficient compliance, it sets a reasonable deadline (taking into account the nature of the case and the difficulties that might arise, but any event no more than 3 months), while at the same time providing detailed instructions and guidelines regarding the action to be taken by the competent authority.

The Council has the power to order the Administration to comply within the deadline set.

If the authority fails to comply within the time-limit set, the Council imposes a fine upon it, which is collected by the applicant. This fine (the amount of which is determined by the Council after evaluating the circumstances of the case) is not paid as a substitute for enforcing the court decision, but as a sanction, to persuade the Administration to execute. The obligation to comply remains and the sanction may be imposed repeatedly if the Administration refuses to comply fully.

The Council of Compliance has accepted that the interested party may apply for enforcement of the payment of the fine imposed without going through the procedure of compulsory execution. Until full compliance is achieved, the Council keeps the case open in order to exert pressure on the Administration to take the necessary action.

Access to this remedy is very easy: applications may be filed at the court or even an e-mail will suffice to set the mechanism in motion. Legal representation is not required and judicial expenses are not levied.

B. statistical data: As regards judgments ordering payment of monetary sums or referring to the status of public servants, the administration has complied almost 100% with the recommendations of the Council of Compliance. Only a few instances of non-compliance exist, in the case of local rather than state authorities. The same appears to be the case regarding matters of appointment of public servants and their status, social security issues and matters of environmental protection.

Judicial decisions that refer to the modification of urban plans, the lifting of expropriations or the cancellation of building permits, present more difficulties in execution (e.g. in the latter case buildings may be defined as illegal and subject to demolition) and in some cases the measures to be taken are more complex and time-consuming. In such cases the judges sitting in the Council of Compliance must give due consideration to the interests of third parties.

Certain difficulties also arise in cases where compliance requires legislative action. Even in those cases, the Council of Compliance has been successful in compelling the Administration to comply with judgments.

• These issues were discussed during bilateral consultations held in Athens on 2 and 3/11/2010. The authorities informed the Secretariat that they will provide detailed and up-dated information.

2) Violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time (Millionis and others): this issue is being examined in the context of the Manios group (70626/01, Section 4.2).

44769/07           Société anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte, judgment of 05/11/2009, final on 10/05/2010

The case concerns the fact that in 1996, land belonging to the applicant company was subject to compulsory sale by auction for the purposes of recovering a debt owed to a bank. The applicant company complained of the conditions in which the notice announcing the auction was served on its legal representative and of the fact that its application to have the auction set aside was dismissed as out of time.

The European Court found a disproportionate limitation of the applicant company's right of access to a court in that the Court of Cassation, despite admitting in 2007 that the decision to sell its property by auction had been notified to the applicant in an invalid manner, nevertheless dismissed the company’s application for annulment of the auction as out of time, because it had not declared that it had no knowledge, and could not possibly have had knowledge of the notification (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court also found that these conditions of notification of the decision at issue, combined with the fact that the applicant company had been deprived of its property without any possibility to react against the auction procedure (as the remedy was dismissed as inadmissible) infringed the fair balance between the protection of its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions and the requirements of the general interest (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court reserved the application of Article 41 as a whole.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

- 8 cases concerning various violations in the context of land expropriation proceedings

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

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

2834/05            Sampsonidis, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 02/06/2008 and of 05/11/2009, final on 10/05/2010

49000/06          Antonopoulou and others, judgment of 16/04/2009, final on 16/07/2009 and of 07/10/2010, possibly final on 07/01/2011

Most of these cases concern various violations of the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in the context of land expropriation proceedings (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The main issues raised are the following:

(a) privation of land without compensation, or with depreciated compensation, or with compensation that does not cover all the aspects of the damage incurred by the landowner;

(b) excessively lengthy proceedings or multiplication of proceedings either to obtain full compensation following expropriation or to have the decisions of executive authorities ordering expropriation be annulled.

Individual measures:

            1) Tsirikakis group: The applicants in all these cases have been awarded just satisfaction by the European Court, including compensation in respect of the pecuniary damage suffered.

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (on 18/02/2008): In the Tsirikakis case, the state's appeal has been finally rejected by the Court of Cassation and no further proceedings are pending; In the Nastou case the Athens regional court delivered its judgment (n°2797/2007) in April 2007 concerning the property rights on the plot of land at issue. This regional court ordered a new assessment concerning the boundaries of the plot of land.

• Additional information is required: on the outcome of the domestic proceedings in the Nastou and Nastou No.2  cases. Additional information is also awaited on the outcome of the proceedings for damages before the Kalamata Court of Appeal in the Anastasiadis case.

            2) Sampsonidis group: The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicants.

• Information provided by the Greek authorities: In the case of Sampsonidis, the European Court, in application of Article 41 awarded the applicants the total sum of 1.840.000 EUR, in respect of pecuniary damage. In the same case, the proceedings initiated at national level by some of the applicants, led to the judgment No 1472/2009 of the Court of Cassation, in which the hearing of their appeal in cassation was declared inadmissible, since counsel of some of the applicants had no attorney. In the Antonopoulou case, in which the European Court’s findings resemble those in Sampsonidis case, the Court delivered its judgment on just satisfaction. This judgment is not yet final.

General measures:

            1) Reform of the law on expropriation: A new Code of Expropriation has been adopted (Law 2882/2001, amended by Law 2985/2002 and by Article 33 of Law No. 2971/2001), following the facts of these cases, providing strict deadlines in proceedings and the possibility of additional compensation in cases of delay.

There is a new case-law of the Court of Cassation on land expropriation (several judgments from 2004 onwards) which is in accordance with the European Court’s requirements as regards the need for “global evaluation” in such proceedings. For the details of the new Expropriation Code and the revised case-law of the Court of Cassation, see the Notes concerning the Azas group of cases, 50824/99, Section 6.1.

All the cases before the European Court were dealt with by the domestic courts on the basis of the former Code of expropriation and prior to the changes in case-law.

• Additional information is awaited on the impact of the measures taken to accelerate special proceedings in expropriation cases, in particular regarding cases related to the recognition of the status of the owner as well as that of the measures taken to ensure due payment of compensation awarded following expropriation.

            2) Length of proceedings:Extensive legislative measures to accelerate proceedings in civil courts (mainly concerns the cases of Tsirikakis, Karagiannis and others, Nastou and Anastasiadis) were taken between 2001 and 2005 (see Final Resolution DH(2005)64 on Academy Trading Ltd and others and other cases). Since the entry into force of this new legislation, first-instance proceedings are now concluded within 1½ years maximum, while in the past they lasted up to four years.

Legislation for providing an effective domestic remedy in this context is also currently under preparation (see the Manios group, Section 4.2).

3) Right of access to a court: The Sampsonidis and the Antonopoulou cases presents similarities to the cases of Roumeliotis (53361/07) and Petropoulos (55484/07, Section 4.2).

4) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgments, translated into Greek, have been sent by the Ministry of justice, to the judicial authorities and are available on the internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr).

- 5 cases mainly concerning the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (lack of compensation for the progressive ban on any construction that affected the applicants’ properties)[37]

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

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

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.

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.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant for the amount of the dept owed for the period deemed as prescribed, plus interest calculated as from when the payment had become due, as he requested.

• Assessment: No other individual measure seems necessary.  

General measures

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 09/06/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently under way to secure the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee.

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 No. 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 No. 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, Section 4.2).

45769/06           Kokkinis, judgment of06/11/2008, final on 06/02/2009

48775/06           Reveliotis, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 04/03/2009

These cases concern breaches to the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the manner in which the Audit Court had fixed the starting point for the payment of their pension rights (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In 1998 and 1999 respectively, the applicants, retired civil servants, asked the Public Accounting Department to reassess their pensions as from 1/08/1997. Ruling on appeal, the Audit Court upheld their claims in 2002. However, the court decided that the amounts of the re-evaluated pensions were due only from 1/01/1999 and 1/07/1999 respectively. This conclusion was due to the interpretation made by the Audit Court of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 166/2000, Article 60§1, of which provides the possibility to claim pension rights retroactively, for up to three years, starting from the “decision concerning their pension rights”. In the present cases, the Audit Court considered that the three-year period of retroactivity should be counted from the publication of its own judgments, which constituted the decisions upholding the applicants’ pension claim.

The European Court found that the interpretation and the application of the relevant provision by the Audit Court, not the provision itself, which seemed in line with the Convention requirements, was at the origin of the violation. According to this interpretation, the date from which the applicants could receive payment of their pensions had depended exclusively on the time that the administrative authorities and courts had taken to render their decisions. The Court noted in particular that the application of such a criterion appeared vague and likely to lead to contradictory and unjustified results.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the amounts claimed by the applicants which corresponded to the difference between the amounts they received between 1997 and 1999 and the amounts due to them following the reassessment of their pension, increased by 20% to cover inflation. These amounts were further increased by 6% per annum.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary. 

General measures: The European Court rendered that it was the way that the Audit Court interpreted the relevant national provision that was not consonant with the Convention system. It noted in its judgments that the Audit Court had recently considered that the approach according to which the time-limit began from the publication of its judgment upholding the interested person’s claim was contrary to the Rule of Law, to several constitutional provisions and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (judgments Nos. 1102/2007 (plenary), 193/2007 (plenary) and 1316/2007). In particular, the Audit Court considered that when the pension rights are dismissed by the administration and then recognised in subsequent judicial proceedings, the starting-point for the time-limit should be the final act of the competent authorities which unlawfully had not recognised the claim (see §§18 and 37 of the Kokkinis judgment).

The European Court’s judgments, translated into Greek, were sent by the Ministry of Justice to the President of the Court of Audit and are available on the official website of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr).

In a more recent case (Makris, 10201/07, decision of 14/05/2009), in which the applicant’s complaint was the same (starting point of the payment of pension), the European Court, referring to new decisions of the Audit Court, rejected the application as inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

• Information is awaited as to whether the jurisprudence of the Court of Audit mentioned above is established.

39574/07          Apostolakis, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the total, automatic withdrawal of his pension in 2007, as provided by national law when, like the applicant, a state employee is irrevocably found guilty of certain crimes against the state such as falsification of paybooks (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court noted that the infringement of the right to property had caused the applicant to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden, which could not be justified by the need to deter civil servants from offending and to ensure the proper functioning of the administration and the credibility of the public service. The Court observed that, following his conviction, the applicant had been automatically deprived of his pension for the rest of his life, even though the offence he had committed had no causal link with his retirement rights. The Court also noted that the penalty imposed on the applicant involved the total forfeiture not only of his right to a pension, but also of social cover, including health insurance. These had the effect of extinguishing the principal means of subsistence of a person who had reached retirement age, an effect compatible neither with the principle of social rehabilitation governing the criminal law of the states party to the Convention, nor with the spirit of the Convention.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

46372/99          Papastavrou and others, judgments of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03 and of 18/11/04, final on 18/02/05

66742/01          Katsoulis and others, judgment of 08/07/2004, final on 08/10/2004 and of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006

                       Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)27

These cases concern the violation of the 64 applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In 1994 the Prefect of Athens ordered the reforestation of a part of this area, including the disputed plots of land. This decision confirmed that taken by the Minister of Agriculture in 1934 covering the same plots of land, and was taken without a fresh assessment of whether the plots in question were forests or not. The Supreme Administrative Court declared the applicants' appeal inadmissible on the ground that the prefect's decision simply confirmed the decision issued in 1934.

The European Court considered that the prefect's failure to reassess the complex situation and the reasoning followed by the Supreme Administrative Court had deprived the applicants of adequate protection, in particular taking into account that there is no possibility of obtaining compensation under Greek law in such cases (where the property rights have not been finally determined by a court) (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case of Katsoulis and others also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court (from November 1994 to June 2000, i.e. more than 5½ years for one level of jurisdiction). The European Court stressed that a chronic backlog of cases in a court's list is not a valid explanation for delays (§40 of the judgment) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction for the pecuniary damages sustained. Possible consequences of the violation still suffered by the applicants should be remedied in the context of the interim and long term general measures (see below). The applicants have not submitted any further claims.

General measures:

            1) Measures adopted: The measures adopted by the Greek authorities were summarised in the interim resolution adopted in June 2006 (see ResDH(2006)27). The most important measures are presented here:

a. Interim measures - Direct effect: Both judgments were translated, published and sent to the Ministry of Justice and to the Council of State. The Greek government noted that the Convention and the European Court's case-law enjoy direct effect in Greek law as proved, in particular by a judgment of the Plenary of the Court of Cassation in 2005 recognising and stressing the supra-statutory force of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention in cases regarding reafforestation and protection of individual land property rights. The government noted that under Greek law, compensation may always be awarded to individuals after their land of forest ownership has been recognised by courts. This compensation may cover any potential damages that individuals may have suffered during the period during which they have been unable to use their property due to pending proceedings concerning ownership. This position is supported by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Courts (Court of Cassation in plenary 21/2005 and the Supreme Administrative Court 2601/2005, 1422/2006).

b. Long-term general measures under way - progress report on the national land and forest register project

The Greek government stressed that the project of national land and forest register initiated in 1994 and consisting of 4 stages is a priority of national importance. In 2005 the Greek Technical Chamber (TEE) acting as consultant to the Greek state, submitted a study to the Ministry of the environment, Urban Planning and Public works, taking stock of the work accomplished during the first 10 years of the project and making proposals for its conclusion. It is foreseen that the second stage of the project (2005-2008) will cover all urban centres and may materialise without state funding which may instead be used for the third and fourth stages. On 5/05/2006 the Ministry of the Environment, Urban Planning and Public works submitted a new bill to the Greek parliament to accelerate the completion of the national land register, in particular by simplifying land registration procedures.

c.General measures adopted and under way to accelerate proceedings before administrative courts with a view to preventing new, similar violations of Article 6, paragraph 1: See the measures adopted in the framework of the execution of other cases (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)65 on Pafitis and others and 14 other cases against Greece). Further measures are under way (see Manios group of cases, 70626/01, section 4.2) concerning in particular the provision of an effective domestic remedy in case of excessively lengthy proceedings.

            2) Measures remaining to be taken: In its Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)27, the Committee of Ministers encouraged the rapid development of a remedy capable of providing compensation for bona fide persons such as the applicants, affected by reforestation decisions and involved in lengthy litigation related to recognition of the ownership of forests. It also encouraged the competent Greek authorities, in particular the Ministry of the environment, Urban Planning and Public works, to intensify its efforts in setting up a cadastral and forest register.

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 31/03/2009): Regarding progress of the national land and forest register project, by 26/05/2008, 325 regions had been registered, which amounts to a surface area of 7 948 201 hectares and 6 278 762 property titles. In June 2008 the registration of a further 107 regions, including the prefectures of Attica and Thessaloniki, began. This new phase will cover the entirety of the urban centres and two thirds of the country’s population concerning property rights. By 2011 when this phase ends, it is estimated that a further 3 million hectares and around 6 million property titles will have been registered. In view of the amount of work required and its significant cost, the completion of the national land and forest register project is not expected before 2016.

• Following the Deputies’ decision at their 1059th meeting (June 2009), the Greek authorities provided detailed information on the developments regarding the various measures adopted. This information is currently being assessed.

6789/06            Fakiridou and Schina, judgment of 14/11/2008, final on 14/02/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions because of the refusal of the Greek authorities and courts to revoke the expropriation imposed on their plot of land since 1933 (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In 1933, by virtue of a decree amending the town’s development plan, a large part of the land in question was expropriated. In 1979 a decision designating the plots of land that had been expropriated and the proportional shares of the compensation due to the owners was adopted. The applicants applied to the administrative authorities and, having been unsuccessful, to the Greek courts, seeking to have the order for the expropriation of their land revoked.

In 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their application because in 1989 two owners of an adjacent plot of land, which had not been expropriated, applied to the Greek courts to be granted permission themselves to pay the compensation due to the applicants and thus enable the expropriation to be carried out. In August 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court accepted their demand to pay compensation to the applicants once the amount had been set. In November 2005, the applicants applied again before the administrative courts against to the authorities’ refusal to revoke the expropriation of their plot of land. These proceedings were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment.

The European Court observed that the applicants’ land had been subject to an encumbrance since 1933, and that since 1979 the authorities had not taken any steps to carry out the expropriation and pay compensation to them. The only procedure aimed at compensating the applicants had been initiated by the owners of the adjacent land. In the Court’s view, the state’s obligation to respect and protect individuals’ property could not be dependent on the initiative of third parties. It therefore concluded that such interference with the applicants’ rights had upset, to their detriment, the fair balance that had to be struck between the protection of property and the demands of the general interest.

Individual measures: The European Court has not awarded any just satisfaction to the applicants since they stated they would be able to file a compensation claim before the administrative courts. On the other hand, they requested the revocation of the expropriation at issue. In this regard, considering that the nature of the violation found allows restitutio in integrum, the Court found that the revocation of the expropriation at issue would most likely put the applicants in the same situation as they would have been had there not been a failure to comply with the requirements of Article 1 Protocol No. 1. 

• Evaluation: Information is awaited of the measures taken or envisaged and on the outcome of the proceedings pending before the domestic courts.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to avoid new, similar violations. Considering the nature of the violation found, the publication of the European Court’s judgment in Greek and its dissemination to courts (in particular to the Council of State and the Administrative Courts of Appeal) and the competent authorities seem to be necessary.

43588/06          Vontas and others, judgment of 05/02/2009, final on 06/07/2009

This case concerns an unjustified interference with the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as a result of a dispute, which lasted from 1991 until 2006 between the applicants and the state regarding the ownership of a plot of land in the island of Spetses (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court considered that the domestic courts, when concluding that the property at issue rightfully belonged to the state, chose unjustly to disregard concrete evidence adduced by the applicants as of no importance under a rule of Romano-byzantine law.

The Court further ordered the restoration of the applicants’ property rights.

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 14/06/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently under way to secure the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee.

66725/01          Fotopoulou, judgment of 18/11/2004, final on 18/02/2005

52903/99          Dactylidi, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 09/07/03

Both cases concern the lack of an effective remedy whereby the applicants might have compelled the local authorities to comply with decisions taken by administrative organs, in 1990 and 1993, ordering the demolition of illegal constructions built in the vicinity of and adversely affecting the applicants’ houses on the islands of Santorini and Folegandros (violations of Article 13).

In the Fotopoulou case, the Court found accordingly also a violation of the applicant’s right to protection of her property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Dactylidi case also concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court relating to the applicant’s application for annulment of administrative acts relating to her neighbour’s building permits on the island of Santorini.

The first proceedings began in August 1992 and ended in October 1999 (7 years and 2 months) and the second began in April 1995 and ended in October 1999 (4 years and 6½ months) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

            1) Dactylidi case: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction covering the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The Greek authorities informed the Committee that, following a review of the file, the impugned constructions have in the meantime been legalised since they had been completed before the revocation of the building permits which had been granted with no fault of the beneficiaries. The applicant has not made known any further claim to the Committee.

            2) Fotopoulou case: The European Court awarded the applicant the full amount of pecuniary damage she had incurred prior to the judgment, as well as non-pecuniary damages.

The Greek authorities indicated that a legislative amendment introduced in 2002 had the effect of exempting from the obligation to demolish where a building had been initially constructed on the basis of a valid permit, subsequently declared illegal. The applicant’s neighbours applied in 2002 to have their construction legalised in accordance with this new legal provision and, in 2004, the administrative authorities declared part of the disputed construction legal. This decision was not appealed before the administrative courts and has therefore become final. The authorities reserved their decision as regards the remainder of the construction, to be delivered once the coastal planning of the area is finalised.

In December 2008, the authorities indicated that the Prefect for the Cyclades region had in his ruling of 17/08/2007 definitively rejected the request to regularise the remainder of the construction. This decision was sent to the planning agency which is competent as regards the demolition.

In a letter of 10/06/2009, the authorities underlined that in the meantime the owners of the disputed construction had applied to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Piraeus seeking the annulment of the decision by the Prefect of the Cyclades. On 04/06/2009, the Prefect of Cyclades contacted the Administration General Inspector to be informed about the possibility of opening demolition proceedings while the Court of Appeal’s decision was expected. In response, the Administration General Inspector underlined (in letters of 26/05/2009 and 18/06/2009) the Greek state’s obligation to comply with the European Court’s judgments, declaring that:  “We inform you that, in our opinion, the demolition of the illegal construction must be done immediately”.

In a letter of 09/06/2010 the authorities underlined that under judgment No 110/2009, the Piraeus Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Prefect of the Cyclades due to lack of motivation and referred the case to the administration for new judgment. They also referred to the appeal already filed by the Director of the local town-planning department of Thira against judgment No 746/09 of the Criminal Court of First Instance of Naxos.

The applicant’s lawyer continues to complain of the failure to demolish the illegal construction in question.

In a letter of 16/10/2009, the applicant’s representative considers the administration’s refusal to proceed with the demolition to be manifestly illegal and declares that she has been forced to lodge a new application before the European Court invoking Article 46§1 of the Convention. In his letters of 24/02 and 21/04/2010 the applicant’s lawyer referred to the two letters mentioned above from of the General Inspector of Public Administration and indicated that under judgment No 746/09 of the three-member Criminal Court of First Instance of Naxos, the Director of the local town-planning department of Thira was found guilty of continually violating his official obligations and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Finally, in his letter of 13/10/2010 the applicant’s representative provides one more letter by the General Inspector of Public Administration, of 20/09/2010, in which it is indicated that the judgment of the Piraeus Administrative Court of Appeal indeed quashed the decision by the Prefect of the Cyclades not to regularise the remaining part of the disputed wall but did not impose its regularisation; therefore the demolition decision is valid.

Lastly, in their latest letter dated 15/11/2010, the authorities provided the following updated information: following judgment No. 110/2009 of the Piraeus Administrative Court of Appeal, the Urban Department of Syros reconsidered the question of the possible legalisation of the remaining part of the disputed wall and delivered judgment No. 38/28-09-2010, by which it confirmed that the illegal construction in question could not be exempted from demolition under current legislation. On 04/10/2010 the Deputy Prefect of Cyclades validated this decision and ordered the demolition of the remaining part. The competent department of the Prefecture of Cyclades approved the cost for the demolition and, having no technical means of its own, has put the work out to tender.

• Information is urgently awaited concerning the developments in the enforcement of the recent domestic decision ordering the demolition of the illegal construction.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No 1:

• Information provided by the Greek authorities:

(a) Law 3242/2004 provides that everyone with a legitimate interest has the right to file an application with the competent administrative organs. Within 50 days thereafter the administration must decide on the applicant’s claim and reply. If the administration does not comply with this deadline, the interested party has a right to compensation covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

The inter-ministerial decision of 03/08/2004 (OJ B 1226, 10/08/2004) sets out the modalities of payment of compensation by the administration in cases where it fails to comply with this deadline.

Article 1§4 of this decision provides that the criteria used in awarding such compensation should include in particular: the amount pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the applicant caused by the delay, the reasons for the delay and, possibly, any relevant report of the Greek Ombudsman;

(b) In addition, Law 3094/2003 provides that any person affected by acts or omissions by the administration may lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman within a certain deadline. The Ombudsman may carry out an investigation and submit a report to the competent Minister and services. Then he intervenes for the finding of a solution to the problem. The Ombudsman’s findings are not legally binding but he may impose on the administration a deadline by which he must be informed of the measures taken. Public servants are obliged by law to assist the Ombudsman during his investigations. Disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal are provided in case of failure to cooperate.

According to information provided by the authorities based on the statistics drawn up by the Department for State/Citizen Relations of the Ministry of the Interior, 246 claims were lodged between 2005-2006, mostly concerning the administration’s failure to rule on requests submitted within the time-limit provided in Law 3242/2004. The same department confirmed that the administration must comply with the Ombudsman’s opinion.

• Updated information is awaited including statistics on the implementation of this law.

            2) Violation of Article 6§1: This issue is being examined in the framework of the Manios group of cases (70626/01, Section 4 .2)

- 8 cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Court of Audit[38]

73840/01          Papazoglou and others, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

66296/01          Belaousof and others, judgment of 27/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004

44132/06          Examiliotis No. 3, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 06/07/2009

12767/02          Hourmidis, judgment of 19/05/2004, final on 19/08/2004

66808/01          Lazarou, judgment of 08/07/2004, final on 08/10/2004

62771/00          Litoselitis, judgment of 05/02/2004, final on 05/05/2004

9893/08            Mageiras, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

11536/05          Papadopoulos Georgios, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 11/01/2008

                        - 219 cases of length of judicial proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Manios group)

                        Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)74

In all these cases violations of Article 6§1 were found on account of the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts and the Conseil d'Etat, civil and criminal courts. Some of these cases also concern the absence of an effective remedy making it possible to bring a complaint against the length of the proceedings (violations of Article 13).

The Diamantides No. 2 case also concerns a violation of the principle of presumption of the applicant's innocence in that, in 200 and 2001 the indictment chambers of the Athens Court of Appeal and of the Court of Cassation, in decisions dismissing complaints by the applicant, used terms of a particularly categorical and vague nature which left no doubt that the applicant had committed acts of which he had already been acquitted or for which he was facing charges in criminal courts (violation of Article 6§2).

Individual measures:

            1) Excessive length of proceedings of judicial proceedings (Article 6§1):

• Information is awaited on the current state of the domestic proceedings, and if necessary on their acceleration, in the cases of Inexco, Sakkopoulos No. 2, Athanasiou, Kontogeorgas, Lalousi-Kotsovos, Karellis, Oikonomidis, Leonodopoulos, Karahalios No.7, Karahalios No. 8, Papasteriades, Papastefanou, Kaparos, Gikas, Peca, Behar Metushi, Luan Metushi and Katsivardelos, Sossoadouno, Angelov, Petrouli, Philippos Ioannidis, Sarantidou, Elezi and others, Chuwunonso, Georginis-Giorginis. All the other procedures are closed.

            2) Violation of the presumption of innocence (Article 6§2): In the Diamantides No. 2 case, it is noted that the applicant was acquitted in the criminal proceedings against him, which were pending at the material time.

General measures: In June 2007, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2007)74 recalling in particular its Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies and urging the Greek authorities to accelerate the adoption of legislative and other measures required.

            1) Excessive length of proceedings of judicial proceedings:

(a) Cases before the Council of State and administrative courts: Greece has adopted a number of legislative and other measures with a view to accelerating proceedings before administrative courts (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)65 on Pafitis and others and 14 other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005). However, other issues have been raised by recent judgments in this group of cases and are being examined by the Greek authorities under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers.

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 25/06/2008) on the new law

No. 3659/2008 entitled “Improvement and acceleration of proceedings before administrative courts and other provisions”: The main innovative measures may be summed up as follows: the notion of the so-called “model trial” has been introduced into the Greek Code of Administrative Procedure. The “model trial” concept empowers the Commissioner General before the administrative courts to require that cases raising very important legal questions and repetitive cases are heard as a matter of priority. Decisions must be delivered within 8 months of the hearing. This deadline may only be extended for two months and only in serious and exceptional circumstances. Failure to comply with this deadline will result in replacement of the judge responsible for the delay, whose disciplinary responsibility is engaged. Hearings may only be adjourned once either at the applicant's request or ex officio by the court and for serious reasons.

No judicial appeal is admissible if the administrative remedies have not been exhausted. Appeals which are manifestly inadmissible or have no legal basis will from now on be considered and, if need be, dismissed following simplified proceedings before a chamber of the Council of State.

A limitation of the administrative courts' jurisdiction is provided for when the amount at issue exceeds a certain sum (20 000 euro). All provisions providing procedural prerogatives for the state or public-law corporations in relation to stays of execution of judgements before they became final, have been revoked. From now on, enforcement of judgments against the state takes place in the same conditions as against a private individual. 

Furthermore, the new law has transferred to the administrative courts a number of cases which previously came within the Council of State's jurisdiction, to relieve it when possible.

The new law also provides creation of 74 new posts of judges.

According to the Greek authorities, it is expected that the implementation of these new measures will result in reducing the duration of proceedings before administrative courts by at least a year. This implies that the average length of first-instance proceedings will not exceed two years and those before the appeal courts will not exceed one year. Following the limitation of the Council of State's jurisdiction, the number of cases brought before it will be reduced to 800 cases a year, which represents 10% of the cases brought before this court every year.

In relation to the Council of State, further measures have been adopted: Law No. 3772/2009 has been enacted. Articles 30-36 refer to “measures to accelerate proceedings before the Council of the State”. Furthermore, the computerisation of most administrative courts and of the Council of State is also contributing to the acceleration of proceedings In this context it may be noted that Article 42 of the new law No. 3659/2008 provides establishment of an electronic legal system: lawyers will be able to follow their cases on their computer; the dates of hearings and deliberations, as well as the progress of judgements already rendered (for more detail concerning the Council of State see the internet site: www.ste.gr, inaugurated on 23/05/2007).

• Information is awaited on the impact of these two laws and also as to whether the adoption of further legislative or other measures is envisaged.

(b) cases before civil courts: A number of legislative and other measures were adopted (Laws No. 3327/2005 and 3346/2005) to accelerate proceedings before civil courts (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)64 concerning Academy Trading Ltd and other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005).

• Information is awaited on the impact of the measures adopted, on the current situation concerning the length of civil proceedings, and also as to whether it is necessary to adopt further measures.

c) Cases before criminal courts: Greece has adopted a number of legislative and other measures with a view to accelerating proceedings before criminal courts (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)66 on the case of Tarighi Wageh Dashti against Greece and 7 other cases, adopted on 18/07/2005).

• Information is awaited on the impact of the measures adopted, on the current situation concerning the length of criminal proceedings, and as to whether the adoption of further legislative or other measures is envisaged.

            2) Effective domestic remedies: The Greek delegation has informed the Secretariat of the work accomplished on the draft law entitled “compensation of litigants due to excessively lengthy judicial proceedings”. This draft law provides a domestic remedy, in the form of compensation, in cases of excessive length of proceedings, at any stage whatsoever, before administrative, civil or criminal courts. This draft law was expected to be tabled before Parliament during the 2008 summer session (letter from the Greek authorities dated 25/06/2008).

• Information is urgently awaited on the developments regarding the adoption of the draft law and the reasons for the delay.

            3) Violation of the presumption of innocence (Diamantides No. 2): In the light of the issues raised in other similar cases (e.g. Kampanellis, 9029/05, Section 4.1), the situation is under assessment.

It should be noted that the special issue of the length of proceedings before the Court of Audit is dealt with in the context of the Papazoglou group (73840/01, Section 4.2).

154 cases against Hungary / 154 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.

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).

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.

26958/05           Sándor Lajos Kiss, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

37376/05           Talabér, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to a public hearing in that an appeal court had upheld the applicants’ convictions sitting in camera without the applicants or their lawyers being present (violations of Article 6§1).

The European Court, recalling that in the determination of criminal charges, the hearing of the defendant in person should be the general rule, considered that in theses cases, given the nature of the charges against the applicants – vandalism in Talabér case and aggravated assault in Sandor Lajos Kiss case – the appeal court should have heard the applicants directly. The Court especially noted that an appeal before the appellate court could concern questions of fact or law and that the nature of the offences was capable of raising issues going to such matters as the applicants’ personality and character, and that therefore a public hearing should have been held.

The European Court further recalled in both cases that where an individual has been convicted in proceedings which did not fulfil the criterion of equity, reopening or retrial at the applicant’s request represents in principle an appropriate means of redress for the violation found.

37374/05           Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009

L'affaire concerne une violation du droit d'accès de l'association requérante à des informations d'intérêt général. En 2004, les tribunaux hongrois ont refusé à l'association requérante l'accès à un recours qui était pendant devant la Cour constitutionnelle et dans lequel un parlementaire demandait à celle-ci de contrôler des modifications du Code pénal concernant les infractions liées à la drogue. Ce faisant, les tribunaux hongrois n'ont pas demandé à l'auteur du recours constitutionnel s'il approuvait le fait que l'association requérante bénéficie d'un accès de cette nature.

La Cour européenne a relevé que la présente affaire concernait essentiellement une ingérence dans l'exercice des fonctions d'organismes de surveillance social comme la presse ou les ONG, et non le déni d'un droit général d'accès aux documents officiels (§36). A cet égard, elle a noté que les informations demandées par l'association requérante étaient prêtes et disponibles et que celle-ci avait demandé les informations sur le recours constitutionnel sans les données personnels de son auteur (§§36-37). Dans ces circonstances, la Cour européenne a estimé que l'atteinte à la liberté d'expression de l'association requérante en l'espèce ne pouvait être considérée comme nécessaire dans une société démocratique (§39) (violation de l'article 10).

Mesures de caractère individuel :

• Des informations sont attendues sur la possibilité d'accorder à la société requérante un accès illimité au recours en cause, exercé devant la Cour constitutionnelle.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités hongroises (lettres du 8/01/2010 et du 12/04/2010) : La Cour constitutionnelle a modifié sa jurisprudence antérieure et permet désormais aux individus d'avoir accès aux informations concernant le contenu des recours devant elle.

• Des informations sont attendues sur cette nouvelle jurisprudence de la Cour constitutionnelle, telles que des exemples de décisions rendues par cette cour en la matière.

31475/05           Kenedi, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 26/08/2009

The case concerns the excessive length of enforcement proceedings in respect of a judgment authorising the applicant’s access to documents concerning the Hungarian secret services for the purpose of historical research. The proceedings began in 1998 and were still pending when the European Court gave its judgment. So far the applicant has had unrestricted access to all but one remaining document (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression (right to receive information). The Court concluded that the authorities, in obstinately maintaining their reluctance to comply with the court orders authorising the applicant’s access to the documents had acted arbitrarily and in defiance of domestic law (§45) (violation of Article 10).

Finally, the case concerns the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the violation of the applicant’s right of freedom of expression. The European Court noted that the state body, being itself bound by the rule of law, adamantly resisted the applicant’s lawful attempts to secure the enforcement of his right, as granted by the domestic courts (§48) (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10).

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities (8/10/2009): The Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement officially handed over all the relevant documents to the applicant on 24/09/2009.

33629/06           Vajnai, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression due to his conviction in 2005 for wearing a totalitarian symbol (i.e. the red star) during a lawfully organised, peaceful demonstration, in his capacity as vice-president of a registered, left-wing political party with no known totalitarian ambitions (violation of Article 10).

The domestic courts relied on Section 269/B of the Criminal Code, which prohibited the use of totalitarian symbols, including the red star.

The European Court held that the red star cannot be understood as representing exclusively Communist totalitarian rule and that it also clearly still symbolises the international workers' movement, working for a fairer society, as well as certain lawful political parties active in various countries (§52).

Furthermore, Section 269/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code does not require proof that actual display of a red star amounted to totalitarian propaganda; instead, the mere display is irrefutably considered to be so. For the European Court, this indiscriminate feature of the prohibition corroborates the finding that it is unacceptably broad (§56).

Accordingly the Court stated that the fine imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued since such sanction belonged to the criminal law sphere and entailed the most serious consequences (§58).

Individual measures: The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may have suffered (§62).

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities (19/01/2009 and 06/07/2009): On 17/12/2008, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a petition ex officio for review in respect of the final judgment convicting the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant’s case was reopened before the Supreme Court. On 10/03/2009, the Supreme Court reversed the previous decisions and acquitted the applicant.

• Information provided by the applicant’s representative (12/01/2010): Mr. Vajnai is taken to the police station whenever he wears a red star in public and the police confiscate the red star. According to the applicant’s representative, such administrative practice, based on the Hungarian Criminal Code in force but not necessarily leading to criminal proceedings against the applicant, deprives him of his right to freedom of expression. In this respect, the applicant’s representative submitted a report of the Independent Police Board (Független Rendészeti Panasztestület) and a decision of the Chief Police Commissioner (országos rendörfökapitánt) to substantiate these allegations.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant and whether there is such an administrative practice as alleged by his representative, which could have a dissuasive effect for the applicant on his future activities. The authorities are also expected to provide the Supreme Court’s judgment concerning the applicant’s acquittal. 

General measures:

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities (19/01/2009): On 10/03/2009, the Supreme Court acquitted the applicant and reversed the previous decisions in this matter (see above). Thus, the Supreme Court changed its case-law concerning Section 269/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code at issue. The European Court’s judgments and the Supreme Court’s decisions, including the Supreme Court’s decision of 10/03/2009, are binding upon lower courts in Hungary. However, if any similar case appears before the Supreme Court, it will apply its recent case-law. 

The European Court’s judgment was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement (www.irm.gov.hu) as well as in professional journals. It was sent to the Office of the National Judicial Council for dissemination to courts nationwide and to the Prosecutor General’s Office in order to initiate the review proceedings.

• Information is awaited on this new case law of the Supreme Court and on examples of decisions rendered by lower courts in this matter according to this new case law.

- 2 cases concerning freedom of expression

12188/06           Csánics, judgment of 20/01/2009, final on 29/04/2009

5380/07            Karsai, judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 01/03/2010

These cases concern violations of the applicants' right to freedom of expression, due to domestic courts' decisions ordering the applicants to rectify certain assertions they had made at a trade union demonstration concerning a certain company and its director (case of Csánics), and in an article where the applicant was criticising the right-wing press (Karsai).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities (22/10/2009): The National Council of the Judiciary was informed of the content of the European Court's judgment and a translation published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement (www.irm.gov.hu).

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged to remedy the problems highlighted by the European Court (i.e. interpretation by domestic courts of defamation provisions, including the distinction between value judgments and factual statements, in similar cases).

                        - 144 cases of length of judicial proceedings

                        (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.

- 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.

- 5 cases against Ireland / 5 affaires 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.

- 4 cases of length of judicial proceedings

50389/99          Doran, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

42297/98          McMullen, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

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

54725/00           O’Reilly and others, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

The cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or criminal charges before criminal, civil and administrative courts. In the Doran case, the proceedings lasted approximately 8 years and 5 months; in the case of O’Reilly and others, some 4 years and 11 months; in the McMullen case the proceedings started on 29/06/1988 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (the period taken into account by the Court was approximately 16 years); and in the Barry case, the applicant was brought to trial eight years after being charged, and proceedings were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (violations of Article 6§1).

The cases of Barry, Doran and the O’Reilly and others also concern the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of excessively long proceedings (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures:

- It would appear from the information furnished by the Irish authorities that proceedings are no longer pending in the McMullen case.

- As to the Barry case, the Irish authorities have indicated that in March 2006, the Circuit Criminal Court judge dealing with the case granted a permanent stay on the prosecution in Cork Circuit Criminal Court. This order has not been appealed, and the case is proceeding no further.

• Assessment: All proceedings are closed. The possibility of obtaining damages for breach of the constitutional right to trial with reasonable expedition remains linked to the general measures.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 6§1:

• Measures taken with a view to reducing the length of proceedings:

- Improvement of judicial management: The Courts Service was established in 1999 by legislation in order “to manage the courts, support the judiciary and provide a high-quality and professional service to all the courts” (by implementing an IT strategy, assisting the judiciary with case management and making major efforts to reduce waiting times in criminal and family law matters).

The Court Service is in the early stages of implementing the IT Strategy for the development of civil case management technology. When developed, the new civil case management system and related business information systems would enable the Courts Service to identify ageing cases and those in which no action has been taken so that they can, if appropriate, be progressed or struck out. However, it should be noted that much of this work is already done manually.

- Register of reserved judgments: Section 46 of the Courts and Courts Officers Act 2002, which entered into force on 31/03/2005, provides the establishment of a register of every reserved judgment in civil proceedings, including those before the Supreme Court. If the judgment is not delivered within two months from the date upon which it was reserved, the President of the Court which heard the case must list the proceedings before the judge who reserved judgment at two-month intervals. That judge must specify the date on which he or she proposes to deliver the judgment.

- Appointment of new judges: Under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, a total of 8 additional judges were appointed to several courts in November 2004. Three of those judges were appointed to the High Court. The additional judges have been deployed in reducing the waiting time for serious criminal trials, cases relating to asylum and immigration matters, applications arising from child abduction and for European Arrest Warrants. As a result, in the Central Criminal Court, the waiting time from return for trial to disposal of murder and rape cases has been brought down from 18-24 months in 2004 to 6-8 months in 2006. Child abduction cases are required by law to be disposed of within 6 weeks. The High Court is required to dispose of European Arrest Warrant applications within 60 days. In May 2007 the government appointed four additional High Court Judges to assist in reducing the waiting time for trials in the High Court.

-Judicial fellowships: Ten judicial fellows were appointed in the autumn of 2008 to assist High Court judges with research. This is expected to have a positive impact in terms of delays generally, particularly with regard to reserved judgments.

- Creation of a specialised court: A Commercial Court (rather “list”) was set up in January 2004, which contributed greatly to reducing the disposal time for cases admitted to the High Court. In the past three years, in the Commercial Court, 50% of the cases have been concluded in less than 14 weeks; 75% in less than 25 weeks; and 90% in less than 45 weeks.

- Use of court venues outside of Dublin: Courtrooms in the Dublin “commuter belt” are now being used as an overflow from the Four Courts complex to overcome a shortage of courtroom accommodation. Further, the President of the High Court and the Courts Service have now initiated a practice whereby High Court business is spread across the country utilising larger, recently refurbished courthouses. Thus, non-jury matters (e.g., civil proceedings related to debt recovery, contract disputes, allegations of negligence and misrepresentation, administrative proceedings) and judicial review cases may now be heard in regional courthouses. As consequence, many cases, which otherwise would remain without a hearing date, were fixed for county town venues. The waiting time in the non-jury list was reduced from 18 months in January 2008 to 3 months in December 2008. The use of court venues outside Dublin also frees up some judges in Dublin to deal with other matters, such as judicial review. The waiting time for judicial review cases in Dublin was reduced from 17 months in 2007 to 7 months in 2008.

- Management of the backlogs: Extra sittings were also arranged to deal with backlogs of Circuit Appeals in some of the regions.

- Measures to reduce Supreme Court waiting times:

(a) Superior Court “Fast Track System”:  There are two branches of the waiting list in the Supreme Court: the “ordinary list” of appeals, in which the waiting time at the end of December 2008 was 31 months, and the “priority list”, in which the waiting time at the end of December 2008 was 6 to 12 months.

In certain cases (e.g. child abduction appeals), appeals can be heard within weeks, and in exceptionally urgent cases, appeals can be heard at extremely short notice. 

(b)The possibility of establishing a Court of Appeal: In May 2009, the Working Group on a Court of Appeal delivered its report, which recommends the establishment of a Court of Appeal in order to remedy the systemic backlog that will otherwise continue to build in the Irish court system. The Group makes recommendations as to how a Court of Appeal might be established and as to the future role of the Supreme Court. The government is currently considering the matter.

There are also ongoing amendments to the rules of the various courts with a view to introducing greater efficiencies in court practice and procedure.

The Irish authorities have indicated that in the light of the above information, it is clear that the measures adopted in response to the violation of Article 6 have greatly improved the situation in Ireland with regard to length of domestic judicial procedures.

• Assessment: Since the facts of these cases, it appears that the overall situation of the excessive length of judicial  proceedings has improved and is expected to continue to improve in light of all  the measures adopted (see above).

• Information would be appreciated on current statistics on the number of cases suffering from unreasonable delay and on the average length of delayed cases, to establish whether the judicial system is now in line with the requirements of the Convention. Further information is also awaited on measures envisaged to address the situation of the length of proceedings before the Supreme Court, particularly the creation of a Court of Appeal. 

            2) Violation of Article 13: There were four cases against Ireland raising similar issues before the European Court: TH, Application No. 23663/06; Mc Farlane, Application No. 3133/06; Superwood, Application No. 4812/2004 and JB, Application No. 9519/07. They were notified to the government, which submitted observations regarding an effective remedy for delay, which takes into account developments in Irish case-law since the delivery of the judgments in the Doran, Barry and O’Reilly and others cases. In the observations, the government submitted that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The government also submitted that domestic law contains a remedy in damages for breach of the constitutional right to trial with reasonable expedition, and provided examples of case-law and a legal opinion supporting this submission.

• An update on the outcome or state of the proceedings in these applications would be welcome.

            3) Publication and dissemination: In the Barry case, the violation appears to be due to circumstances particular to the case; consequently the publication and dissemination of the judgment would appear to be sufficient for execution. Copies of the judgment have been provided to all government departments and offices that had an interest in the case, namely the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Attorney General. A copy of the judgment has also been provided to the Courts Service. The judgments of the European Court, as published in the official reports and/or in other law reports and journals, are available in legal libraries in Ireland. A short article in relation to the case was published in the Law Society Gazette. The judgment of the European Court and the case was widely reported in the media at the time.

Copies of the Doran, McMullen and O’Reilly judgments have been provided to all government departments and offices that had an interest in the case and copies have also been provided to the Courts Service. An article about the Doran case appeared in the Irish Times on 01/08/2003. A link to the website of the Court is provided on several Government and legal websites.

- 2202 cases against Italy / 2202 contre l'Italie

28634/06           Maiorano et autres, arrêt du 15/12/2009, définitif le 15/03/2010

Cette affaire concerne le manquement des autorités à leur devoir de protéger la vie des personnes relevant de leur juridiction, en raison de l’octroi en 2004 d’un régime de semi-liberté à un récidiviste dangereux, période au cours de laquelle il a assassiné les proches des requérants (violation du volet matériel de l’article 2).

La Cour européenne a noté que les éléments positifs qui ont amené le tribunal de l’application des peines de Palerme à octroyer à l’intéressé un régime de la semi-liberté « étaient contrebalancés par de nombreux éléments en sens contraire, qui, aux yeux de la Cour, auraient dû inspirer une plus grande prudence au moment de décider de donner ou non à une personne condamnée pour des crimes violents d'une gravité extrême la possibilité de passer la majeure partie de la journée en dehors du pénitencier et d'entrer en contact avec le monde libre » (§115 de l'arrêt). La Cour a également estimé qu’il y eu un manquement de la part des magistrats du parquet de Campobasso, d’informer le tribunal de l’application des peines compétent du non-respect des prescriptions liées au régime de semi-liberté par l’intéressé pour que le tribunal puisse engager une procédure de révocation de ce régime (§§120-122).

L’affaire concerne en outre le manquement de l’Etat à son obligation positive d’établir la responsabilité de ses agents impliqués dans les faits incriminés (violation du volet procédural de l’article 2). A cet égard, la Cour a conclu que l’action disciplinaire engagée par le Ministère de la Justice à l’encontre des juges du tribunal d’application des peines ayant octroyé le régime de semi-liberté n’a pas entièrement satisfait à l’obligation d’établir la responsabilité des agents impliqués dans les faits. Elle a noté en particulier qu’aucune poursuite disciplinaire n’avait été engagée à l’encontre des autorités de Campobasso.

43134/05           G.N. et autres, arrêt du 01/12/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010

Cette affaire concerne le manquement des autorités à leur obligation procédurale de protection du droit à la vie en raison de la durée excessive de la procédure intentée par les requérants. Cette procédure avait pour objet la réparation des préjudices qu'ils estimaient avoir subis à la suite de leur contamination, ou de celle de leurs proches, par le VIH et les virus de l'hépatite B et C lors de transfusion et/ou d'administration de sang et de produits sanguins dans le cadre de structures sanitaires publiques (violation de l’article 2 en son volet procédural). L’affaire concerne également le traitement discriminatoire subi par le requérants qui, à la différence des personnes hémophiles, n’ont pu bénéficier de règlements à l'amiable (violation de l’article 14 combiné avec l’article 2).

La Cour européenne a relevé que la procédure incriminée dans laquelle les requérants sont intervenus entre 1991 et 2001, a duré entre plus de trois ans et plus de dix ans selon les requérants, et s’est terminée en 2005. Elle a noté en outre, que la Commission européenne des droits de l'homme, examinant en 1998 la première instance de cette procédure, avait exprimé l’avis selon lequel il y avait eu violation de l'article 6§1 sous l'angle du « délai raisonnable ». Déjà à l’époque, la Commission avait rappelé la jurisprudence de la Cour selon laquelle, dans le domaine des procédures en réparation intentées par des hémophiles infectés par le virus du SIDA à la suite de transfusions sanguines, « une diligence exceptionnelle » s'impose, « nonobstant le nombre de litiges à traiter ». Le Comité des Ministres a fait sien l’avis de la Commission dans sa Résolution intérimaire DH(98)392 (requêtes 37874/97, 37878/97 and 37879/97).

Par ailleurs, la Cour a considéré que le recours prévu par la loi n^o 89 du 24/03/2001 (« loi Pinto ») et permettant de se plaindre de la durée excessive d'une procédure (recours que les requérants n'ont pas formé) aurait été insuffisant en l'espèce, dès lors que ce n'était pas simplement la durée de la procédure qui était en cause, mais la question de savoir si, dans les circonstances de l'affaire prise globalement, l'Etat pouvait passer pour avoir satisfait à ses obligations procédurales au regard de l'article 2 de la Convention. 

22635/03           Sulejmanovic, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 06/11/2009

This case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicant due to the overcrowding in Rebibbia prison (Rome) during his detention there (violation of Article 3).

The Court noted that for more than two and a half months at least (until 30/04/2003) the applicant had to share a 16,2 m² cell with other five detainees, i.e. the space available to each detainee was on only 2,7 m². It considered that this kind of situation evidently led to annoyance and daily inconvenience for the applicant, who was forced to live in an excessively confined space, much smaller that the minimum cell size (7 m²) seen as desirable by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading treatment or Punishment (CPT). According to the Court, the evident lack of personal space suffered by the applicant constituted, in itself, an inhuman or degrading treatment (§ 43 of the judgment).

In its judgment, the Court stated that “it cannot provide the exact and definitive measure of the personal space which should be granted to each detainee pursuant to the Convention, as this depends on several factors, such as the length of the deprivation of liberty, the possibilities to gain admittance to the outdoor walk or the mental and physical conditions of the detainee” (§ 40). As to the conditions of detention of the applicant from April 2003 and until his release in October 2003, the Court established that they did not constitute a violation of Article 3. The Court noted that during that period the applicant disposed of more than 3 m² of personal space and that therefore the prison overcrowding was not such as to raise in itself problems under Article 3 (§ 51 of the judgment).

Individual measure: The applicant was freed in October 2003 with remission. The Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of moral damages.

• Assessment: in light of the above, no further individual measure seems necessary, except for the payment of just satisfaction.

General measures: Following the judgment of the European Court, two circulars letters were sent to the governors of Italian prisons on 25/08/2009 (No. 0308424) and on 18/11/2009 (No. 0424877). Besides setting out the reasoning of the European Court in the Sulejmanovic judgment, the circulars letters list the general measures under implementation in the short and medium term to comply with the basic principles on conditions of detention. In particular, also in the light of the need underlined by the European Court to take into consideration both the space at the disposal of the detainees in their cells and other aspects of prison life (§ 40-42 of the judgment) when dealing with conditions of detention, the circulars refer to the following measures:

-           reorganisation of unused space in prisons, as well as of the space used for special detention regimes/units;

-           implementation of computer systems for continuous monitoring of the number of detainees in cells, in order to intervene rapidly where and if necessary;

-           initiatives to implement a wider range of social or working activities in prisons, as well as to allow detainees more time in the open air;

-           initiatives to implement more efficient management of measures alternative to detention (misure alternative alla detenzione).  

Furthermore, a meeting between the Directors General of the Ministry of Justice (Department of Prison Administration) and the governors of Italian prisons was held on 17/09/2009. The minimum standards and guidelines set out above were discussed with reference to the current situation in the prisons of each Italian Region and to the necessary general measures that should be implemented to avoid violations of the European Convention as far as prisoners’ treatment is concerned. 

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: the swift reaction of the Italian authorities to the findings of the European Court is welcome, as are the publication and dissemination of the judgment. The Secretariat will contact the authorities to clarify certain issues, in particular linked to the internal remedies at the disposal of detainees to challenge their conditions of detention, as well as to the way in which the monitoring of the implementation of the measures indicated will be carried out by the national authorities.   

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 amounting 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. The Court noted that, despite repeated requests and although his name is on waiting lists, no adequate hospital has been found so far: it therefore ordered deferment of the execution of the sentence for a year (until 09/01/2011), 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.

• Information provided by the Italian authorities (23/06/2010): In relation to the new application, the authorities forwarded a letter of May 2010 from the applicant’s counsel to the European Court. It appears from this letter that, once released, Mr. Scoppola was transferred to a medical clinic near Parma (Casa di Cura Valparma) where he underwent a medical examination on 19/02/2010. The doctor that visited him stated that, in the light of his very serious health problems, he should be put in an appropriate facility to undergo a specific orthopaedic programme for at least 8 months. On 08/04/2010 the applicant was transferred to the Hospital “San Secondo” in Fidenza. His lawyers still claim that he should be transferred to an appropriate facility. 

• Assessment: it would be useful to know whether, according to the authorities, the San Secondo Hospital in Fidenza is an appropriate facility to deal with the applicant’s serious health problems, as also highlighted by the Bologna Supervisory Court and by the doctor at the Casa di Cura Valparma Clinic.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Italian authorities (08/03/2010): The Italian authorities indicated that to avoid future similar violations, whenever necessary 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: The adoption of effective general measures is extremely important considering that the Court, after its judgment in the present case, issued an interim measure under Rule 39 in a new case concerning the same violation regarding Mr. Scoppola, and also the impossibility of rapidly finding an appropriate medical facility as noted by the supervisory magistrates, see above. • It would therefore be useful to receive more detailed information in practical terms on how the Ministry of Justice, together with the supervisory magistrates, intend to deal with future similar situations in effective co-operation with the territorial health units. Information is also awaited as to whether the authorities envisage a broad dissemination of the judgment, including courts responsible for the execution of sentences and to territorial health units, in order to stress the importance of a swift reaction by all actors concerned.

- 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 there is no expulsion order against the applicant and there is nothing to suggest that a new order will be issued.

• Assessment: in light of the above, no further individual measure seems necessary.

            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 provided by the Italian authorities (16/08/2010 and 26/10/2010): the applicant has been free on probation since 27/05/2010. The expulsion order has been lifted.

• Assessment: in light of the above, no further individual measure seems necessary.

            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 provided by the Italian authorities (16/08/2010): the applicant is free.

• Information is awaited on whether the expulsion order against him is still in force.

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 provided by the Italian authorities (16/08/2010): the applicant is currently serving a prison sentence.

• Information is awaited as to whether the expulsion order against him is still in force.

• 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 provided by the Italian authorities (16/08/2010): the applicant is free.

• Information is awaited on whether the expulsion order against him is still in force.

            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 provided by the Italian authorities (16/08/2010 and 26/10/2010): the applicant is free and the expulsion order has been lifted.

• Assessment: in light of the above, no further individual measure seems necessary.

            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 provided by the Italian authorities (16/08/2010): the applicant is currently serving a prison sentence until 19/09/2016.

• Information is awaited on whether the expulsion order against him is still in force.

• 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 provided by the Italian authorities (16/08/2010): the applicant is free.

• Information is awaited as to whether the expulsion order against him is still in force.

            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. According to the Italian authorities, currently there is no expulsion order against him and there is nothing to suggest that a new order will be issued.

•Assessment: in light of the above, no further individual measure seems 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 provided by the Italian authorities (16/08/2010): the applicant is free.

• Information is awaited as to whether the expulsion order against him is still in force.

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 (www.italgiure.giustizia.it), and on the government's website (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.

3449/05            Hokic et Hrustic, arrêt du 01/12/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010

L'affaire concerne le retard dans la remise en liberté d’un des requérants d’un centre de rétention pour étrangers, malgré la décision du juge de paix annulant l’arrêté d’expulsion pris à son encontre et ordonnant sa remise en liberté (violation de l’article 5§1).

Les requérants, M. Hokic et Mme Hrustic, sont un couple rom originaire de Bosnie-Herzégovine et résidant à Rome. Le 11/01/2005 la police leur a notifié à chacun un arrêté d'expulsion chacun et le même jour, en exécution de ces arrêtés d’expulsion, ils ont été placés au centre de rétention de Ponte Galeria (Rome). Les requérants ont introduit chacun un recours devant le juge de paix contre les arrêtés d’expulsion. La seconde requérante a été remise en liberté pour des raisons de santé et l’arrêté d’expulsion à son encontre a été annulé. Le 22/02/2005, l’arrêté d’expulsion à l’encontre de M. Hokic a également été annulé et sa remise en liberté a été ordonnée par le juge de paix.

La décision du juge de paix a été déposée au greffe le 01/03/2005 et communiquée au bureau de l'immigration de la police de Rome le 03/03/2005. Le requérant a été remis en liberté dans la soirée du 03/03/2005.

La Cour européenne a noté que le délai entre le dépôt au greffe de la décision du juge de paix et la remise en liberté du requérant avait été de 48 heures minimum et de 60 heures minimum (§31 de l'arrêt). De plus la Cour a noté que pas moins de 6 jours se sont écoulés entre la date de la décision du juge de paix et celle du dépôt au greffe de celle-ci (§34).

- 2 cases concerning unfairness of criminal proceedings (convictions based on testimonies made only at the investigation level)

36822/02           Bracci, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006

62094/00           Majadallah, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 26/03/2007

These cases concern the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings which resulted in the applicants' conviction on the basis of testimony given at the investigatory stage by witnesses whom the applicants were unable to examine or to have questioned, in breach of their right to a fair trial (violations of Article 6§§1 and 3d).

In the Bracci case, the proceedings, which concerned a number of offences (robbery, sexual abuse, illegal possession of a weapon) against various victims, resulted on 5/11/1998 in the applicant's conviction and sentence to six years' imprisonment (both the appeals before the Rome Court and before the Court of Cassation, as well as the appeal for the revision of the decision were rejected).The European Court noted that the part of the conviction based solely on the testimony given in the trial by a victim who then disappeared and which was used under Article 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see below), had hampered the rights of the defence in a manner incompatible with the guarantees of the Convention.

In the Majadallah case, the applicant was convicted on 22/01/1998 of sexual assault, public obscenity, bodily harm and drunkenness and sentenced to a year and four months' imprisonment suspended. The applicant had no possibility of examining his accusers, who did not attend the proceedings as they had disappeared (their statements were used under Article 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Both the appeals before the Court of Florence and before the Court of Cassation were rejected and his conviction was upheld.

The European Court has stated that, where a conviction is founded solely or to a significant degree on the testimony of a witness whom the defendant cannot cross-examine or have cross-examined, be it at the investigative or the trial stage, defence rights are restricted in a manner incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (§55 of the Bracci judgment).

Individual measures: In both cases the European court found that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

- Bracci case: The applicant appealed by means of an “incidente d'esecuzione” to the Rome Tribunal competent to supervise the enforcement of sentences, claiming that his sentence was illegal on account of the violation found by the European Court. The Tribunal admitted his appeal on 25/09/2006 and ruled his conviction illegal. The applicant was thus dispensed of the remaining part of his sentence. Observing the impossibility of securing reopening by legislative means, the Rome Tribunal decided to establish the unlawfulness of the applicant's detention by declaring the sentence unenforceable.

- Majadallah case: As the applicant’s sentence was suspended, the detention was not enforced.

• Assessment: in these circumstances, and considering that the applicants may request the inscription of the judgment of the European Court in their criminal records (pursuant to Article 19 of the Decree of the President of the Republic of 14/11/2002, No. 313, as amended by Decree No. 11 of 14/01/2006) no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

            1) Article 512 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Article 512 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure still provides the possibility of convicting on the basis of testimony which the defendant cannot test, but only in cases where, due to unforeseeable circumstances, it is impossible to reproduce the testimony in question. In its judgment No. 4331 of 18/10/2007, the Court of Cassation recalled the obligation to comply with final judgments of the European Court under Article 46 of the Convention, and emphasised that Article 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be interpreted in conformity with the Convention. Explicit reference is made to the latter aspect and to the judgments of the European Court in the present cases in the recent decision of the Court of Cassation of 23/09/2009, No. 44158.

A legislative change in this respect does not seem strictly necessary in principle, provided that the existing law is applied in conformity with the principles flowing from the European Court's case-law.

Thus to this end the publication of the European Court's judgment is necessary, as well as broad dissemination to courts, together with any other measure likely to ensure that the case-law of Italian Courts is aligned with the requirements of the Convention.

            2) Reopening of criminal proceedings: The European Court underlined that “it cannot speculate on the outcome of the proceedings if they were held in compliance with Article 6§§1 and 3d) of the Convention”. Furthermore, the Court stated that, when “the conviction of an applicant has been ordered in the framework of a procedure which was unfair, in principle it considers that the most appropriate remedy would be to grant the applicant a new trial and the respect of the requirements of Article 6” (§§73, 75 of the Bracci judgment). 

In its decision of 25/09/2006 in the Bracci case (see above), the Rome Tribunal noted that Italy, unlike other European states, did not yet dispose of means of reopening proceedings following judgments of the European Court, and underlined the need to introduce such an avenue into the national judicial system so as to give effect to the Convention as interpreted by the European Court. The Court of Cassation said the same in its decision of 1/12/2006, No. 2800 in the case Dorigo. It should also be noted that the Constitutional Court, in its judgment No. 129 of 30/04/2008, addressed a further vigorous invitation to the legislature to enact measures to permit reopening of proceedings following the finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

The need for legislative action on this issue had already been stressed in a previous, similar case (Dorigo), closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)83) by the Committee of Ministers, in which the Committee strongly urged “the Italian authorities to complete, as rapidly as possible, the legislative action needed to make it possible, in Italian law, to reopen proceedings following judgments given by the Court” (see both the Final Resolution and Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)85 in the Dorigo case). 

- Draft Law no. 2871 on reopening of criminal proceedings: a draft law modifying the Code of Criminal Procedure was tabled in October 2009 before the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Parliament. It provides the possibility to request reopening of unfair criminal proceedings following a final judgment of the European Court provided that:

(i) the European Court found a violation of article 6§3 of the Convention, which had a decisive influence on the outcome of the proceedings (Article 1);  

(ii) when the request to reopen is filed, the applicant is in detention or has to be detained, or is subject to a measure alternative to detention other than a pecuniary penalty (Article 1);

(iii) the request for reopening is filed before the Court of Cassation within 3 months from the date on which the judgment of the European Court has become final (Article 1) or, where the judgment of the European Court became final before the law is adopted, within 3 months from the entry into force of the law (Article 3);

The Court of Cassation, within a month of the filing of the request to reopen, delivers its judgment on the admissibility of the request: if the request is considered admissible, the file is passed to the competent court of appeal for new proceedings. If the latter considers that the execution of the appealed judgment would result in unlawful detention, it suspends the execution within 20 days from receipt of the file from the Court of Cassation (Article 1)

• Assessment: The new draft law is welcomed – following the repeated invitations of the Committee of Ministers, of the European Court and of the domestic courts – as far as it provides a means of reopening unfair criminal proceedings, fixing strict time-limits for the competent jurisdictions (i.e. one month for the Court of Cassation to examine the admissibility of the request).

However, it has to be noted that the limitation to violations of Article 6§3 of the Convention (see point (i) above) would exclude reopening in case of other violations having a decisive influence on the outcome of the proceedings (i.e. violation of Article 6§1). See, in this respect, Interim Resolution 2002(30), in which the Committee of Ministers noted that “[…] the Italian authorities could, in the course of the ongoing legislative work, envisage to broaden the possibilities of reopening”.

 • Information is awaited on the status of the draft law before the Parliament and on the provisional calendar for its adoption. An invitation is addressed to the authorities to consider the limitations present in the draft law – in particular the fact that reopening is possible only for detained applicants and only in case of violation of Article 6§3, as per the above assessment - and to evaluate whether any amendment would be opportune to grant full compliance with the Convention and with the Committee of Minister’s Recommendation No. (2000)2.

            3) Publication and dissemination: The Bracci judgment was published in the Official Bulletin of 15/05/2006 (No. 9), while the Majadallah judgment was posted on the website of the Ministry of Justice. Both were sent out to the competent authorities, on 31/05/2006 and 23/04/2007 respectively, by means of an explanatory note. The judgments have also 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), with an Italian translation.

This website is widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike.

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.

- 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 ; ResDH(2005)114, CM/ResDH(2007)2,CM/ResDH(2009)42: - including 118 cases 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 involving virtually every type of judicial institution (1 571 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. 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) Developments in 2008 and 2009: 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. At the 1059th meeting (March 2009), the Deputies adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)42 on the progress achieved and outstanding issues in this field. The Deputies, 1.             adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)224 as it appears in the Volume of Resolutions; 2.             decided to resume consideration of these cases at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided by the Italian authorities.

- 2183 affaires de durée de procédures judiciaires (voir également pour plus d’informations détaillées, 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 Résolution intérimaires DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437, ResDH(2000)135 ; ResDH(2005)114 CM/ResDH(2007)2 ; CM/ResDH(2009)42 - y compris 118 affaires de durée de procédures concernant des droits et obligations de caractère civil devant les juridictions administratives courts (Voir Annexe pour la liste des affaires) - et y compris 2065 affaires de durée de procédures judiciaires (Voir Annexe pour la liste des affaires) Ces affaires concernent la durée excessive de procédures judiciaires en Italie. Elles sont actuellement au nombre de 2183 (voir la liste complète en annexe) concernant presque toutes les juridictions (1 571 affaires concernent les procédures civiles dont 1 exigeant une diligence exceptionnelle, 364 portent les procédures du travail, 7 affaires concernant des procédures d'exécution forcée, 122 procédures pénales et 118 procédures devant les juridictions administratives). Environ 180 autres affaires ont abouti à des règlements amiables. Les premiers constats de violations de l'article 6§1 par l’Italie, en raison de la durée excessive de procédures judiciaires, remontent aux années 80. A la suite de certaines mesures de caractère général adoptées par l'Italie, le Comité a clos la surveillance de l’exécution de ces arrêts en 1992, pour les procédures pénales, et en 1995, pour les procédures civiles (Résolutions DH(92)26 et DH(95)82 respectivement). Toutefois, le nombre de violations constatées par la Cour n'a pas diminué et le Comité a décidé, en 1997 par la Résolution DH(97)336, « de reprendre l'examen des réformes nécessaires et de maintenir ces affaires sur son ordre du jour jusqu'à la mise en œuvre de ces réformes ». Par la suite, le Comité a adopté plusieurs résolutions intérimaires d’une part faisant état des mesures prises et d’autre part constatant aussi leur insuffisance (Résolutions DH(99)436, DH(99)437, DH(2000)135, ResDH(2005)114). En 2000, le Comité a décidé de « continuer l'examen attentif de ce problème jusqu'à ce que la réforme du système judiciaire italien devienne tout à fait efficace et jusqu'à ce que le renversement de tendance au plan national soit complètement confirmé ». A défaut de progrès décisifs en la matière, le Comité a demandé à l’Italie, d’abord par la Résolution intérimaire ResDH(2005)114, et ensuite par la Résolution intérimaire ResDH(2007)2 de mettre en place une nouvelle stratégie efficace, coordonnée au plus haut niveau gouvernemental, fondée sur une approche interdisciplinaire qui inclue les acteurs principaux du système judiciaire italien (voir le détail ci-dessous sous mesures générales). Mesures de caractère individuel : D’après les informations disponibles, 707 procédures n’étaient pas encore terminées (531 procédures civiles, 109 procédures devant les juridictions du travail, 1 procédure en exécution forcée, 23 procédures pénales et 43 procédures devant les juridictions administratives). Les autorités italiennes ont indiqué que les constats de violation avaient été signalés aux juridictions nationales en vue d'accélérer les procédures pendantes. Mesures de caractère général : 1) Reformes législatives dans les années 90: Au cours de la dernière décennie, l’Italie a adopté plusieurs réformes et mesures organisationnelles, reflétées dans les Résolutions précitées de 1992, 1995, 1997 et 1999. Des mesures importantes ont été prises : a) dans le domaine pénal, à travers la réforme globale du code de procédure pénale qui a fixé des délais aux enquêtes du parquet et introduit différentes procédures simplifiées ; b) dans le domaine civil notamment par l’institution des juges de paix afin de faire face à la surcharge de travail des magistrats ordinaires. 2) La surveillance de l'exécution de 2000 jusqu’à 2005. - Le système des rapports annuels : En 2000, le Comité a conclu que l'Italie, tout en faisant des indéniables efforts pour résoudre le problème, ne s'était pas encore acquittée de son obligation de se conformer aux arrêts de la Cour et aux décisions du Comité des Ministres. Par conséquent, une nouvelle Résolution intérimaire ResDH(2000)135, a proposé un système de rapports annuels devant faire état des progrès intervenus sur les trois principaux axes d’actions suivants : • L’amélioration de l’efficacité du système judiciaire : les premiers rapports annuels rappelaient les réformes de fond introduites, notamment au civil par la création du juge unique en première instance, l’incorporation de l'article 6 de la Convention dans la Constitution italienne (loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1999, mise en œuvre par le décret loi n° 2 de 2000), l'extension de la compétence du juge de paix au domaine pénale (loi n° 163 de 2001). • L’élimination des affaires les plus anciennes : les mesures essentielles ont consisté en la mise en place de juges extraordinaires spécifiquement chargés de telles affaires (sezioni stralcio). Toutefois, ceci n’a pas suffi à réabsorber l’arriéré récent. • L’indemnisation des victimes de procédures déraisonnablement longues : la loi Pinto a permis de diminuer le nombre de recours à Strasbourg, mais ne s’est pas avérée totalement efficace en tant que moyen de seule indemnisation des victimes (pour un exemple de ses défaillances, voir l’affaire Cocchiarella et autres, arrêt de Grande Chambre du 29/03/2006). - Le plan d'action de 2005 : En 2004, au vu de la tendance à l’augmentation des délais moyens de procédures, l'Italie a été invitée à élaborer un plan d'action afin d‘identifier: 1) les problèmes à l'origine de la lenteur de la justice, 2) un éventail de mesures à adopter et un calendrier de leur mise en œuvre, 3) les délais dans lesquels ces mesures devraient donner leurs premiers résultats. Dans le plan d’action soumis en 2005 (CM/Inf/DH(2005)39), les autorités italiennes ont identifié les causes suivantes à l’origine du problème structurel : - le principe du caractère obligatoire de l’action publique, - une dépénalisation insuffisante, - le coût très limité de l’introduction d’une action en justice, - l’entassement de l’arriéré des affaires au cours des années, - le penchant naturel du pays pour les litiges, et - certains avantages que la lenteur des procédures procure à ceux qui n’ont pas intérêt à ce qu’un jugement intervienne rapidement. Les autorités ont également fait état d’une série de mesures législatives et organisationnelles, en soulignant les énormes sommes dépensées pour le fonctionnement de la justice. Pour ce qui est des premiers résultats, elles ont indiqué que ceux-ci devraient être attendus à moyen et long terme, les réformes importantes nécessitant du temps. Enfin, il est à noter que selon le plan d'action « les réformes mises en œuvre depuis 2000, sur lesquelles le Comité des Ministres avait donné un avis favorable, n'ont pas produit tous les effets désirés et cela confirme qu'il existe en Italie des obstacles structurels ayant une valeur politique très forte ». - Les engagements de 2005 : Le Comité, par sa Résolution Intérimaire ResDH(2005)114, a noté la persistance du problème ainsi que ses caractères structurels et complexes. Dans ses conclusions, le Comité a : - prié instamment les autorités italiennes de renforcer leur engagement politique et de faire du respect des obligations de l'Italie, en vertu de la Convention et des arrêts de la Cour, une priorité effective afin de garantir le droit à un procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable à toute personne relevant de la juridiction de l'Italie ; - demandé aux autorités compétentes de mettre en place une politique nationale efficace, coordonnée au plus haut niveau gouvernemental, en vue d'aboutir à une solution globale du problème, et de présenter, d'ici fin 2006 au plus tard, un nouveau plan d'action basé sur le bilan des résultats accomplis et incluant une approche efficace pour sa mise en œuvre. 3) Le rapport annuel de 2006 et autres engagements  Le rapport faisait état des mesures les plus récentes, parmi lesquelles figuraient : l’avancement du procès civil télématique ; les réformes de la procédure civile (loi n° 80 de 2005), de la faillite, de l’arbitrage et de la procédure devant la Cour de cassation. En ce qui concerne la juridiction administrative, de nouveaux magistrats avaient été engagés et le système informatique amélioré. Pour le futur, le rapport dessinait les grandes lignes envisagées, notamment la création d’un système pour mesurer l’efficacité (performances) des juridictions qui ne se limite pas à une simple évaluation statistique, la détermination et la programmation de standards d’efficacité, le recensement des besoins des juridictions, la valorisation du personnel administratif, l’amélioration du système informatique. Au niveau politique, plusieurs déclarations et discours des autorités italiennes confirmaient qu’elles avaient pleinement conscience de la gravité du problème et qu’elles étaient déterminées à renforcer leur engagement politique et à faire du respect des obligations de l'Italie en vertu de la Convention et des arrêts de la Cour une priorité effective. Cet engagement s’est, entre autre, concrétisé, d’une part, par l’adoption de la loi n° 12 du 9/01/2006 octroyant à la Présidence du Conseil des Ministres la compétence de coordonner l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour et d’informer régulièrement le Parlement de l’avancement de leur exécution, et d’autre part, par la création d’une commission ministérielle, dénommée « Commission Mirabelli » ayant pour but d’étudier le système judiciaire et de proposer des mesures normatives et organisationnelles pour améliorer son efficacité. 4) Développements en 2007 : Suite au rapport annuel de 2006, le Comité des Ministres a adopté une nouvelle Résolution intérimaire ResDH(2007)2 qui, tout en reconnaissant les nouvelles mesures, législatives ou autres, prises entretemps par les autorités, a : - appelé les plus hautes instances italiennes à maintenir leur engagement politique à résoudre le problème de la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires ; - invité les autorités à engager une action interdisciplinaire impliquant les acteurs principaux de la justice et coordonnée au plus haut niveau politique en vue d’élaborer une nouvelle stratégie efficace. En octobre 2007, la commission « Mirabelli » a rendu son rapport qui dégageait les objectifs suivant pour améliorer l’efficacité de la justice : décriminalisation, mesures alternatives au règlement des litiges, augmentation de la capacité de production, innovation technologique, organisation de la justice et distribution du personnel plus adéquate. Une première réunion bilatérale sur la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires entre les autorités gouvernementales italiennes et Service de l’Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne a eu lieu en octobre 2007 à Rome. Dans le cadre du traitement interdisciplinaire du problème structurel de la durée, les autorités avaient prévu d’adopter : - un éventail de mesures (réforme normative des procédures civile et pénale; réorganisation des tribunaux, modalités de recrutement du personnel, informatisation des procès, diffusion des bonnes pratiques et adoption de mesures dissuasives ou de conciliation) ; - des objectifs précis et ciblés quant aux durées maximales de procédures devant les différentes instances judiciaires ; - l’association à la conception et la mise en œuvre de ces réformes non seulement des magistrats mais aussi des autres acteurs principaux de la justice, à savoir les avocats, le greffe et les usagers de la justice. 5) Développements en 2008 et 2009 : Suite à la dissolution du Parlement italien, en février 2008, le nouveau gouvernement s’est attelé, dès son installation, à réformer la justice selon un programme dont les lignes directrices semblent se situer dans la continuation des celles des législatures précédentes. Une deuxième réunion bilatérale sur la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires a eu lieu, encore une fois à Rome, en octobre 2008. Lors de cette rencontre entre les plus hautes autorités gouvernementales italiennes (M. Letta, Sous-secrétaire de la Présidence du Conseil des Ministres, M. Alfano, Ministre de la Justice, ainsi que plusieurs hauts fonctionnaires des différents ministères et organes judiciaires) et le Service de l’Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, le gouvernement italien a, d’une part, présenté de façon exhaustive les mesures législatives déjà adoptées et celles en voie d’adoption par le Parlement ainsi que des mesures organisationnelles, complétées par des données statistiques, et d’autre part, il a réitéré son engagement ferme afin de parvenir à une solution définitive du problème structurel de la durée des procédures. Pour la présentation détaillée des mesures prises ou envisagées voir le document d’information CM/Inf/DH(2008)42. Lors de la 1059e réunion (mars 2009) les Délégués ont adopté la Résolution intérimaire CM/ResDH(2009)42 relative aux progrès réalisés et aux questions en suspens dans ce domaine. Les Délégués, 1.             adoptent la Résolution intérimaire CM/ResDH(2010)224 telle qu’elle figure au Volume de Résolutions ; 2.             décident de reprendre l'examen de ces affaires lors de leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière d’informations complémentaires à fournir par les autorités italiennes.

- 14 cases against Latvia / 14 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.

547/02              Jeronovičs, arrêt du 01/12/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010, rectifié le 16/03/2010

La présente affaire concerne la violation du droit du requérant à un procès équitable en raison de l’impossibilité pour ce dernier de comparaitre à l’audience du sénat de la Cour suprême qui examinait son pourvoi en cassation dans une procédure pénale (violation de l’article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a relevé que le requérant avait expressément demandé à comparaître, en vertu de l’article 458 de l’ancien code de procédure pénale, et qu’en outre il n’était pas assisté d’un avocat.

L’affaire concerne en outre les traitements dégradants infligés au requérants en raison de son enfermement dans des cellules extrêmement exigües dans les prisons de Griva et de Daugavpils, avant et après son transfert d’un établissement pénitentiaire à un autre, de l’insuffisance de nourriture et de son enfermement dans la cellule d’isolement provisoire de Rēzekne en attendant l’audience de la cour régionale (violation de l’article 3).

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.

32214/03           Shannon, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

The case concerns the failure by a regional court promptly to examine the applicant’s appeals against the extension of his remand in custody (violations of Article 5§4).

The European Court recalled that Article 5§4 requires a prompt judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the release of the detainee if it proves unlawful.

65014/01           Pacula, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial insofar as he was convicted on the basis of evidence submitted by the victim whom he was unable to question at the hearing.

In October 1999 the Riga District Court sentenced the applicant to eight years’ imprisonment for theft. Although, immediately after his arrest, the police brought the applicant face to face with the victim, the latter did not appear before the trial courts for health reasons.

The European Court held that an inter partes hearing of the victim, whose evidence was decisive for the outcome of the case, was in principle required in order to comply with Article 6 of the Convention. 

The case also concerns the opening and reading of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court by the prison authorities in pursuance of Article 41.7 of the Code on the Enforcement of Sentences (violation of Article 8).

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.

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.

798/05              Miroļubovs and others, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009

This case concerns a violation of the applicants' right to freedom of religion (Article 9) owing to the manner in which the national authorities intervened in an internal dispute concerning their religious community (violation of Article 9).

The first applicant was the "spiritual master" of this religious community of the Old Orthodox faith and the other two applicants were the Chair and a member of the parish council of the community in Riga.

Following the election of a new parish council and the adoption of new statutes in 1995, a splinter group within the community refused to recognise these changes and seceded with a number of the parishioners. This group was subsequently registered as a parish by the Religious Affairs Directorate. However, a dispute arose between the two rival groups, each of which claimed to constitute the only legitimate assembly of this religious community.

In August 2002 the Religious Affairs Directorate cancelled the registration certificate issued to the applicants' community and issued a new certificate to the rival group. On the basis of expert reports, the national courts upheld the Directorate's decision.

The Court held that, in intervening in this dispute between the two communities, the Directorate had issued a decision giving insufficient reasons in breach of the state's obligation of neutrality in religious matters.

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.

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.

- 4 cases against Lithuania / 4 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. 

• Informations fournies par les autorités lituaniennes le 29/07/2010 : Les amendements 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 ont été votés par le Seimas le 30/06/2010 et sont entrés en vigueur le 20/07/2010. L’article 9 de cette loi qui régit les restrictions professionnelles imposées aux anciens collaborateurs secrets des services spéciaux de l’ex-URSS, a également subi des amendements et ne prévoit plus de restriction professionnelle pour cette catégorie de personnes en ce qui concerne le secteur privé. Les restrictions professionnelles pour les anciens collaborateurs secrets du KGB concernent soit des fonctions politiques, dont la nomination est effectuée par le Président de la République, le Parlement ou le Gouvernement, soit des fonctions qui présentent un intérêt particulièrement important comme des fonctions diplomatiques, militaires ou des fonctions qui donnent accès à des informations classifiées ou celles qui concernent la gestion du système d’informations d’Etat. L’article 9 tel qu’amendé prévoit également des restrictions professionnelles concernant les fonctions publiques dans le domaine judiciaire, comme l’interdiction pour cette catégorie de personnes d’exercer en tant que procureurs ou contrôleur d’Etat.

Selon les autorités lituaniennes, les anciens collaborateurs secrets des services spéciaux de l’ex-URSS peuvent désormais postuler pour des emplois dans le secteur privé et ils ont également le droit de travailler dans le domaine du secteur public, à l’exception des fonctions mentionnées à l’article 9 précité. Les autorités lituaniennes considèrent que l’amendement en question a ainsi établi un équilibre entre les buts légitimes poursuivis par les restrictions en question et le droit au respect de la vie privée des personnes soumises à ces restrictions.

• Evaluation : Les informations fournies par les autorités sont en cours d'évaluation.

15869/02           Cudak, judgment of 23/03//2010 – Grand Chamber

The present case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court owing to the Lithuanian courts’ extensive interpretation of the Polish State’s immunity from jurisdiction in a dispute concerning the applicant’s dismissal from her duties at the Polish Embassy in Lithuania.

In December 1999, the applicant was dismissed from her duties at the Polish Embassy in Vilnius. The action which the applicant brought before the national courts requesting compensation for unfair dismissal was rejected because of considerations based on the principle of the Polish State’s immunity from jurisdiction. In its final judgment of 25 June 2001, the Supreme Court of Lithuania, considering that the duties performed by the applicant at the Embassy facilitated the exercise by the Polish State of its sovereign functions and, the Republic of Poland was therefore entitled to State immunity.

The Court concluded that in the instant case there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Having noted that the applicant’s duties at the Embassy consisted in recording international conversations, typing texts, photocopying documents and helping to organise certain events, the Court considered that these duties could not be considered to endanger the interests of the Polish State and that this State’s immunity from jurisdiction in Lithuania should be interpreted, in the instance case, in a restrictive manner so that the applicant could assert her civil rights before the courts. 

• Information provided by the Lithuanian authorities (letter of 28/06/2010): An explanatory note on the judgment and its content has been placed on the official internet site. All the relevant institutions and all domestic courts were separately informed about the judgment. The judgment is currently in the process of translation into Lithuanian. It will then be placed on the official internet site of the Ministry of Justice.  

35624/04           Šulcas, judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (eight years and nine months), and the lack of a domestic remedy whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 13).

The case presents similarities to the Girdauskas group of cases (Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)127), but this is the first case in which the European Court also found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

- 5 cases against Luxembourg / 5 affaires contre le Luxembourg

24720/03           Alliance Capital (Luxembourg) S.A, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007[39]

- 3 affaires concernant la violation du droit d'accès à un tribunal due au rejet d'un pourvoi en cassation pour des motifs excessivement formalistes

17140/05           Kemp et autres, arrêt du 24/04/2008, définitif le 24/07/2008

18522/06           Dattel n° 2, arrêt du 30/07/2009, définitif le 10/12/2009

33094/07           Nunes Guerreiro, arrêt du 05/11/2009, définitif le 05/02/2010

Ces affaires ont trait au caractère inéquitable d'une procédure devant les juridictions civiles (violations de l'article 6§1).

Dans l'affaire Kemp, l'Etat avait acquis, en 1970, des terrains ayant appartenu aux parents des requérants, dans le cadre d'un projet de construction d'une autoroute, lequel ne fut cependant pas réalisé selon le plan initialement établi. Les intéressés se virent opposer un refus à leur demande de rétrocession des terrains litigieux. Le pourvoi en cassation exercé dans ce contexte fut rejeté en 2004 au motif que les moyens de cassation n'étaient pas suffisamment détaillés.

Dans l'affaire Dattel n° 2, suite à une première procédure, les requérants avaient engagé, en 2001, une seconde procédure civile, afin d'obtenir le remboursement d'une créance auprès de la banque H.B. Luxembourg (« HBL »). En 2002, le tribunal d'arrondissement déclara leur recours irrecevable, au vu de l'autorité de la chose jugée des décisions judiciaires rendues dans la première procédure. En 2005, la Cour de cassation rejeta leur pourvoi, pour manque de précision dans l'expression de leurs moyens de cassation. Elle estima que le moyen était « constitué d'un amalgame de cas d'ouverture de cassation partiellement reproduits dans les différentes branches et sans lien logique entre eux, qui ne permettait pas d'en saisir le sens et la portée ».

Dans l'affaire Nunes Guerreiro, en 2004, la demande du requérant d'une allocation de pension d'invalidité fut rejetée. Ses recours contre cette décision furent également rejetés, d'abord par le conseil arbitral des assurances sociales, puis par le conseil supérieur des assurances sociales. Dans son moyen de cassation, l'avocat reprochait aux juges d'avoir mal interprété la loi pour déclarer son appel non fondé ; dans la discussion du moyen, il indiquait le sens dans lequel les dispositions légales auraient, selon lui, dû être lues. Le 01/02/2007, la Cour de cassation rejeta le pourvoi au motif que le moyen ne précisait pas en quoi les dispositions légales visées auraient été violées ou mal appliquées.

Dans ces affaires, la Cour européenne a jugé que ces décisions étaient excessivement formalistes et que la limitation au droit d'accès à un tribunal imposée par la Cour de cassation n'était pas proportionnée au but poursuivi consistant à garantir la sécurité juridique et la bonne administration de la justice.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

            1) Affaire Kemp : Les requérants ont indiqué qu'ils souhaitaient obtenir la réouverture de la procédure litigieuse en vue d'une restitutio in integrum. A leurs yeux, si l'irrecevabilité du pourvoi litigieux était contraire à l'article 6§1, il devrait, après l'arrêt de la Cour européenne, être jugé sur ses mérites.

Au titre de la satisfaction équitable, les requérants ont réclamé principalement la restitution des terrains litigieux ou, à défaut, la valeur vénale actuelle des terrains (soit selon eux plus de 3,5 millions d'euros), ainsi qu'une indemnisation pour la perte de jouissance (évaluée à plus de 2,2 millions d'euros). La Cour européenne a rejeté ces demandes au motif qu'elle « a conclu à une violation de l'article 6 de la Convention et à une non-violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1. Elle n'aperçoit pas de lien de causalité entre la violation constatée et le dommage matériel allégué et rejette dès lors cette demande ». Elle a toutefois indemnisé le préjudice moral subi par les requérants.

• Evaluation : Des informations semblent nécessaires sur les éventuelles mesures prises ou envisagées suite aux demandes répétées des requérants Kemp souhaitant obtenir la réouverture de la procédure litigieuse.

2) Affaire Dattel n° 2 : Au titre de la satisfaction équitable, les requérants ont demandé une somme correspondant au préjudice moral subi (1,4 millions d'euros). La Cour européenne a rejeté cette demande car elle n'a constaté aucune apparence d'arbitraire dans la manière dont les juges nationaux avaient statué et conclu au caractère illicite de la créance pour les deux comptes bancaires. La créance alléguée n'était pas suffisamment établie pour s'analyser en une « valeur patrimoniale » appelant la protection de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1.

3) Affaire Nunes Guerreiro : La Cour européenne a octroyé au requérant une somme au titre du préjudice moral subi.

Mesures de caractère général : La règle appliquée par la Cour de cassation pour se prononcer sur le caractère recevable du pourvoi en cause est une construction jurisprudentielle (§52 de l'arrêt Kemp). La Cour européenne a estimé « que la précision exigée par la [Cour de cassation] dans la formulation du moyen de cassation litigieux n'était pas indispensable pour que cette dernière puisse exercer son contrôle. Pareille exigence affaiblit à un degré considérable la protection des droits des justiciables devant la haute juridiction nationale, surtout si l'on tient compte du fait que le Luxembourg ne connaît pas le système des avocats aux Conseils spécialisés » (§58 de l'arrêt Kemp).

En outre, dans l'arrêt Dattel n°.2  la Cour européenne a estimé que le mémoire en cassation devait être considéré dans son ensemble, en ce sens que les requérants devaient avoir formulé leurs doléances à l'égard de l'arrêt d'appel soit dans l'énoncé du moyen de cassation même, soit au besoin dans la discussion qui développe le moyen (§39).

L'arrêt Kemp a été publié dans la revue Codex, mensuel juridique et politique du Luxembourg (www.codex‑online.com <http://www.codex-online.com>). Il a également été diffusé à la Cour de cassation qui applique directement la Convention telle qu'interprétée par la Cour européenne et été transmis au Procureur Général d'Etat, aux fins d'information des instances judiciaires intéressées. 

Des changements législatifs sont intervenus par la loi du 03/08/2010, portant modification de la loi du 18/02/1885 sur les pourvois et la procédure en cassation.

• L'examen de la nouvelle loi est en cours.

76240/01           Wagner and J.M.W.L., judgment of 28/06/2007, final on 28/09/2007[40]

- 3 cases against Malta / 3 affaires contre Malte

26111/02           Mizzi, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006[41]

42583/06          Schembri and others, judgment of 10/11/2009, final on 10/02/2010 and of 28/09/2010, possibly final on 28/12/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions due to the expropriation of their property in 1974 without adequate compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

In 1974 the Maltese authorities gave notice of the expropriation of land owned by the applicants. The applicants refused the compensation offered. In October 1995 the Land Arbitration Board (LAB) ordered the transfer of the land and established the amount of compensation to be paid. No appeal existed against a decision of the LAB. In April 2006, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint that the expropriation violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, holding that the estimates provided by the applicants were based on the current market value, whereas the evaluation of the LAB referred to the real value of the land in 1974 when it had been expropriated.

The European Court held the expropriation to constitute a “deprivation of possessions” (§30 of the judgment), which satisfied the requirement of lawfulness (§31) and was “in the public interest” (§34). However, when considering the question of proportionality, the Court noted that at the time of the judgment neither the transfer of the land nor the payment of compensation had yet taken place, some 35 years after the government initially took possession of the land. The Court concluded that in the circumstances of the present case, “by awarding compensation reflecting values applicable decades before and deferring the payment of such for at least twenty years until the date of the LAB decision which did not take into account this delay, the national authorities rendered that compensation inadequate and, consequently, upset the balance between the protection of the right to property and the requirements of the general interest” (§34).

Individual measures: The European Court gave a separate judgment on 28/09/2010 concerning just satisfaction (not yet final) awarding the applicants just satisfaction in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 

• Assessment: No other individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: An action report was provided by the authorities on 06/07/2010.

In 2009 Article 22 of the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Ordinance was amended. New Article 22 (3) provides that within 15 working days from the publication of the President’s declaration, the government is obliged to deposit in a bank account a sum equal to the compensation amount offered by the President’s declaration. Persons entitled to compensation shall have the right to freely withdraw the deposited sum along with any interest accrued. Article 22 (5) states that such withdrawal of the compensation amount shall not prejudice the right of interested persons to take action seeking determination of any further compensation that may be payable to him. The present Article 22 (5) reads as follows: "The amount deposited as provided in sub-article (3) together any interest accruing thereon may be withdrawn as provided in the said sub-article whether or not the sum deposited as compensation has been accepted as the amount of compensation due, and the withdrawal of such deposit interests shall not prejudice the right competent to any person to take action according to this Ordinance for the purposes of determining any further compensation that may be payable to him in accordance with this Ordinance".

Article 22 (6) provides: "Where the person entitled to compensation does not accept that the amount deposited is adequate, such person may apply to the Board for the determination of the compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. Such application shall, on pain of nullity, state the compensation that in the opinion of the applicant is due." Article 22 (7) states that "the Board shall determine such compensation and shall give all necessary orders and directives in accordance with this Ordinance."

• The information submitted by the authorities is welcome. However, clarification is awaited regarding the appeal procedure for contesting the original amount of compensation awarded. 

47045/06           Amato Gauci, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009

This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions resulting from the application of Act XXIII, enacted in 1979, which from 2000 subjected him to a forced landlord-tenant relationship without providing adequate compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

After his parents’ death in 1995 and 1997 the applicant inherited a maisonette, which his father had rented to a third person for a period of 25 years in accordance with an emphyteutic contract (i.e., a hereditable, low-rent lease) concluded in 1975.

The European Court found that as a result of Act XXIII, which allowed certain tenants to retain property under a lease without the consent of the owner, the applicant could not exercise his right of use in terms of physical possession and was subjected to a forced landlord-tenant relationship for an indefinite period. Having regard to the low rental value, the state of uncertainty regarding recovery of the property and the lack of procedural safeguards in the application of the law, the Court held that a disproportionate and excessive burden was imposed on the applicant.

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

• Information is awaited on the current status of the lease contract.

General measures: The Maltese authorities provided an action plan on 06/07/2010.

Legislative amendments were introduced in 2009. They provide that in accordance with Article 1531C of the Civil Code the rate of rent shall increase every three years by a proportion equal to the increase in the index of inflation. Several restrictions have been introduced concerning the possibility of inheritance in lease contracts. Thus, Article 1531F provides that the lease of a house or an ordinary residence concluded before 1/06/1995 may now be inherited only when a successor holds a valid lease title as of 1/06/2008, and subject to conditions provided in the same article. Article 1531F also provides that a person shall not be entitled to continue the lease following the death of the tenant unless such person satisfies the means test criteria which the Minister responsible for accommodation may introduce from time to time.

• Assessment: Information provided by the authorities is welcome. Information on other general measures envisaged would be useful.

- 134 cases against Moldova / 134 affaires contre Moldova

39806/05           Paladi, judgment of 10/03/2009 – Grand Chamber

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of individual petition as a result of the Moldovan authorities’ failure to comply with the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, in which the Court requested the authorities to refrain from transferring the applicant from the Republican Neurology Centre of the Ministry of Health (violation of Article 34). The European Court noted that the fact that, ultimately, the risk to the applicant’s health did not materialise, does not alter the fact that the negligence and the lack of action of the Moldovan authorities (on the part of both the Governmental Agent who was responsible for transmitting the interim measure immediately to the relevant judicial authorities and the judicial authorities responsible for deciding to prevent the applicant’s transfer) were incompatible with their obligations under Article 34.

The case also concerns various violations related to the applicant’s detention on remand.

First, it concerns inhuman and degrading treatment due to inappropriate medical treatment received by the applicant in detention, considering the seriousness of his state of health (violation of Article 3). The European Court noted that the applicant suffered from a number of serious illnesses (he had been inter alia diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes, chronic active hepatitis, third-degree arterial hypertension, second-degree congestive heart failure, endocrinal renal failure, etc.) and that it was clear that he was in need of constant medical supervision. In view of the applicant’s state of health and the overall level of medical assistance he received in detention, the European Court found that the treatment to which he was subjected was contrary to the Article 3 (§72).

Secondly, the case concerns the unlawful detention of the applicant between 22/10/2004 and 15/12/2005 in the absence of a judicial decision to that effect (violation of Article 5§1). “Relying on well-established case-law concerning the domestic authorities’ practice of detaining an accused pending trial without at the same time extending the court order providing a legal basis for such detention”, the European Court found violation of Article 5 §1 (§73).

Individual measures: On 15/12/2005 the applicant’s detention pending trial was replaced by an obligation not to leave his city of residence. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 34:

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged or taken to prevent new, similar violations.

Information is also awaited on the publication on the full text of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to all courts and prosecutors, possibly with a circular letter from the Supreme Court of Justice, drawing their particular attention to their obligations under Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention.

2) Violation of Article 3: see Becciev group (9190/03, Section 4.2)

3) Violation of Article 5§1: see Muşuc group (42440/06, Section 4.2)

17332/03           Levinta, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009

This case concerns violations of Article 3 on account of:

- torture inflicted on the applicants, two brothers, on 3 and 4/11/2000, while they were in police custody at the Chisinau police inspectorate,

- the failure by the authorities to transfer the applicants to a safe place with a view to preventing new abuses against them by the police officers in charge of the investigation,

- the lack of sufficient medical assistance during the applicants’ detention,

- the failure by the authorities to carry out an effective investigation on the allegations of ill-treatment, immediately after the events.

The European Court found it particularly disturbing that, during the first days of the applicants’ detention and especially after the ill-treatment inflicted on them, the lawyers were prevented from having access to the applicants. In this respect, the European Court found it striking that the complaints submitted by the lawyers to the prosecutor and the Chisinau regional court were dismissed on the sole ground that the applicants did not complain themselves. This especially as the ill-treatment allegations were credible. In this context, the Court found that the failure to transfer the applicants to a safe place after the ill-treatment to which they had been subjected, had been a continuation of ill-treatment.

As regards the failure by the authorities to carry out an effective investigation immediately after the events, the European Court considered that the domestic courts’ analysis made approximately two years after the events on the basis of the documents in the case-file which contained no evidence of ill-treatment, could in no way remedy this failure.

Recalling states’ obligation to protect the physical well-being of detainees, the European Court found that in this case security concerns had been given overriding precedence. Thus, despite the medical emergency team’s recommendation of in-patient treatment for the first applicant, the authorities had chosen to leave him at the police inspectorate, where he could not benefit of sufficient medical assistance. Moreover, the second applicant had not even been examined by a doctor although he claimed that he had lost the use of his arm as a result of ill-treatment.

Finally, having regard to its findings on the applicants’ ill-treatment on 3 and 4/11/2000, to the confessions they signed on 7 and 8/11/2000 in the absence of their lawyers, and to the total lack of reaction by the authorities to their lawyers’ complaints, the European Court considered that “statements obtained in such circumstances fall within the category of statements which should never be admissible in criminal proceedings since use of such evidence would make such proceedings unfair as a whole, regardless of whether the courts also relied on other evidence” (§104) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Both applicants were convicted and are currently serving their sentences. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants.

            1) Violations of Article 6: The European Court recalled that “where an individual has been convicted following proceedings that have entailed breaches of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, a retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation.”

• Information is awaited on action taken by the Moldovan authorities with a view to ensuring reopening of the cases.

            2) Violation of Article 3:

• Information is awaited on measuresenvisaged or taken by the authorities with a view to ensuring an effective investigation into the ill-treatment inflicted on 3 and 4/11/2000.

General Measures:

            1) Violations of Article 3:

- Lack of sufficient medical treatment: see Holomiov group (30649/05, Section 4.2).

• Information is also awaited on existing legislative or regulatory framework concerning medical assistance in detention.

- Lack of an effective investigation: see Corsacov group (18944/02, Section 4.2).

            2) Violations of Article 6:

• Information is awaited on the regulatory framework concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the Convention’s requirements. Information is also awaited on the publication of the full text of the judgment and its dissemination to all courts, prosecutors and to police services, possibly with a circular letter from the Supreme Court of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior, drawing their particular attention to their obligations under Articles 3 and 6§1 of the Convention.

33134/03           Pădureţ, judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

The case concerns torture inflicted on the applicant, a 21-year old student, while in police custody and the lack of an effective investigation in this respect (violation of substantial and procedural aspects of Article 3).

The European Court particularly noted that the investigation lasted nearly 6 years (from June 2000 to March 2006) and that one of the alleged perpetrators was never subject to investigation proceedings. It further noted that criminal proceedings were initiated under Article 101 of the old Criminal Code (causing bodily harm) instead of Article 101-1 (torture), without any explanation as to the choice of lesser offence. This choice made it possible to relieve the guilty officer from criminal responsibility due to the expiry of the limitation period. In this respect, the European Court observed that no limitation period should apply to acts of ill-treatment by a state agent (§75).

Finally, the European Court noted with serious concern that in Moldova torture was considered an “average-level crime”, to be distinguished from more serious forms of crime and thus warranting reduced sentences. The Court held that this position was absolutely incompatible with the obligations resulting from Article 3 of the Convention, given the extreme seriousness of the crime of torture. The Court concluded that the Moldovan authorities had failed fully to denounce the practice of ill-treatment by law-enforcement agencies, adding to the impression that the legislation adopted to prevent and punish acts of ill-treatment was not given full preventive effect (§77). The Court also noted the absence of any effort to develop modern methods of investigation and a substantial delay in adopting a code of ethics for the police (adopted almost four years after the CPT inquiry).

81/04                Savitchi, judgment of 17/06/2008, final on 17/09/2008[42]

2638/05            Roşca Petru, judgment of 06/10/2009, final on 06/01/2010

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to investigate the applicant’s complaints of excessive use of force by police officers during his arrest (procedural violation of Article 3). 

The European Court found a number of deficiencies in the investigation, such as the failure to identify and hear witnesses; the failure to establish the manner in which the injuries had been caused to the applicant; the lack of an in-depth medical examination of the applicant.

The case further concerns the applicant’s conviction for an administrative offence in the absence of a lawyer without being given sufficient time to prepare his defence (violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3 (c) and (d)).

In particular, the European Court noted that even if the applicant made no request to be assisted by a lawyer or for time to prepare his case, the domestic court must have realised that after a night in detention and having seen only the record of his arrest, the applicant could not have prepared for the hearing, for instance by identifying witnesses on his behalf or undergoing a medical examination. Therefore under the circumstances, regardless of any request to offer the applicant time and facilities to prepare his case, such an opportunity should have been given to him by the court ex officio, the more so since he risked fifteen days' administrative detention as punishment.

Individual measures:

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities (March 2010): On 30/11/2009 the Court of Appeal granted the prosecutor’s motion to re-examine the contested proceedings and constituted a new panel of judges for that purpose.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of these new proceedings. Information is also awaited on measures taken by the authorities to investigate the violation under the Article 3 of the Convention.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3 (c) and (d) - to date the authorities have provided no information.

2) Violation of Article 3 – see the Savitchi case (81/04, Section 4.2).

25464/05           Gavrilovici, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

This case concerns unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression due to the criminal sanctions imposed on him for calling a public official a “fascist” and using “other insulting words” at a local council meeting (violation of Article 10).

The European Court noted in particular that the national courts failed to make a proper evaluation of the nature of the utterance – that it was a value judgment and not a statement of fact, the state of despair and anger of the applicant, the minimal effect of the speech and the fact that it was made against a politician, in which case the acceptable limits of criticism are higher than as regards a private individual.

The case also concerns poor conditions under which the applicant’s was detained for five days detention at the Ştefan-Vodă police station in January 2005. The European Court found, with a reference to CPT Reports, that the conditions at this police station, combined with the added suffering due to the fact that the applicant was prevented from seeing members of his family who were ill and from attending church to honour his recently deceased mother, amounted to degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

Individual measures: The applicant is no longer detained. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicant’s conviction still appears on his criminal record.

General measures:

            1) Unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression

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

2) Poor conditions of the applicant’s detention at the police station: It results from the judgments and from the CPT Report of 2009 that in 2008 the detention centre of Ştefan-Vodă police station was closed down by the Ministry of Internal Affairs as it did not meet legal requirements. Further general measures to improve conditions of detention at police stations are being examined in context of the Becciev group of cases (9190/03, Section 4.2).

            3) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment has been translated and published in the Official Journal of the Moldovan Republic (Monitorul Oficial) as well as on the official internet site of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.justice.md) and sent out to all appropriate authorities.

- 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

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

41704/02          Roşca Valeriu and Roşca Nicolae, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

These cases concern inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicants while in police custody (substantive violations of Article 3) and the authorities' failure to carry out effective investigations in this respect (procedural violations of Article 3).

The European Court identified, among others, the following shortcomings in the domestic investigations:

-           the lack of independence of the prosecutor’s office (Gurgurov case);

-           the failure to hear a witness who could confirm the ill-treatment (Breabin case);

-           the failure to take proper account of medical reports regarding the ill-treatment (Buzilov, Corsacov and Colibaba cases);

-           the fact that prosecutors’ decisions were made solely on the basis of the statements of the police officers accused of ill-treatment with no regard to those of the applicants (Buzilov and Pruneanu case).

In the Rosca Valeriu and Rosca Nicolae case the Court raised the problem of the lack of preventive effect of the legislation prohibiting torture due to the failure of the authorities to apply to the perpetrators the sanction corresponding to torture (Article 101/1 of the Criminal Code) instead of a more lenient sanction for abuse of power (Article 185 of the Criminal Code).

In the Corsacov, Gurgurov and Pruneanu cases the Court also found that the applicants had no effective remedy whereby they might claim compensation for their ill-treatment (violations of Article 13) due to the fact that a civil action for damages caused by ill-treatment by the police officers could only be brought if they had been found guilty. In these cases the criminal investigations conducted by the domestic authorities concluded that the actions of the police officers were lawful.

The Colibaba case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of individual petition due to a threat by the Prosecutor General to prosecute his lawyer on the ground of his “improper” complaint to an international organisation (violation of Article 34).

Individual measures: In all cases, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of torture and of the absence of proper investigations.

As regards the investigations into the applicants' allegations of ill-treatment:

            1) Corsacov case: the Prosecutor General’s Office conducted an investigation against the alleged perpetrators of the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant. The case is currently under examination by the Hânceşti Court of First Instance (a hearing was scheduled for 28/11/2006).

• Information is expected on the progress of these proceedings.

            2) Pruneanu case:

• Information is awaited on the conduct of new investigations of the allegations of ill treatment in May 2001 and July 2002.

            3) Colibaba case:

• Information is awaited on the conduct of a new investigation of the allegations of ill treatment in April 2006.

• Information is also awaited on individual measures taken in the other cases in the group.

General measures:

            1) Measures taken with a view to preventing ill-treatment in police custody:

(a) Legislative changes: In their letter of 29/09/2008 Moldovan authorities referred to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) to prevent ill-treatment, such as the right of access to a lawyer before the first inquiry (Article 64§2.4 of the CCP), the right to contact relatives or others immediately after arrest (Article 173) and the right to medical examination upon arrest (Article 251 of the CCP together with Orders of the Minister of Interior Nos 384, 6/272 and 384).

On 30/06/2005 the Moldovan Parliament adopted an amendment to the Criminal Code (CC), defining and criminalising torture. Article 309¹ of the Criminal Code provides a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years with suspension of the right to hold certain offices or to engage in certain activities for up to 5 years. More severe penalties are provided (3 to 8 years' imprisonment with the same suspension of rights) for organising or inciting torture and in respect of certain types or techniques of torture (5 to 10 years). Torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are prohibited by a series of special provisions contained in the Criminal Code (Articles 306-309 and 327, 328) and in the Code of Criminal Proceedings.

(b) Regulatory changes: On 19/04/2006 the Moldovan government approved the Code of Police Ethics (published in December 2006) drafted with the Council of Europe's assistance. Among the relevant provisions, Section 13 provides that all police officers are fully responsible for their actions or omissions as well as for orders given to their subordinates. According to Section 16 it is prohibited to apply, encourage or tolerate any act of torture under any circumstance, to use force, except in cases of absolute necessity and only to the extent necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Section 30 of the Code provides that any failure to comply with its provisions entails the disciplinary, civil or criminal responsibility of the police under the conditions prescribed by law.

On 30/11/2006, the Prosecutor General adopted an order (n° 325/19) on the prevention of and the fight against torture. This order requires heads of divisions of the General Prosecutors' Office to monitor the application of the legislation by the agents in charge of investigation and penitentiary institutions. It also stresses the importance of supervising investigations into allegations of torture.

Legislation (CCP Article 52, law on Public Prosecutor’s Service, Prosecutor General’s Orders Nos 6/4 of 30/10/2005, 15/4 of 29/09/2006 and 24/4 of 30/10/2007) provide for daily visits of prosecutors to detention facilities, their access to detainees and their documents with a view to checking, among other things, the lawfulness of their detention.

On 11/05/2005 a commission in the Ministry of Interior was established, responsible for implementing the National Plan of Action for 2004-2008 in the field of human rights.

The Ministry of Interior set up a telephone number for anonymous calls to gather complaints related to violations committed by police officers.

(c) Training and awareness raising:  According to Section 11 of the Code of Police Ethics, staff training should be carried out according to the objectives of the police force, while respecting fundamental principles such as the rule of law, democratic pluralism and the protection of human rights.

Several training programmes on human rights (torture, inhuman and degrading treatment) and the European Convention have been organised within the Ministry of Interior for the police and their co-workers. Other seminars have been organised with help of the Moldovan Institute of Penal Reform and the UNDP, for the employees of the Ministry of Interior.

In 2004-2006 thirty seminars were held for national and regional police officers in co-operation with various international organisations on the topics of human rights and prohibition of torture.

As of the 2005-2006 academic year the module “Respect for Human Rights” was introduced at the Stefan cel Mare Police Academy.

• Assessment: According to the Committee of Ministers' practice regarding this kind of cases (see, in particular, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434, DH(2002)98 and ResDH(2005)43 concerning the action of the security forces in Turkey, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)20 concerning the action of the security forces in Northern Ireland and Final Resolutions ResDH(94)34 in the case Tomasi against France and ResDH(2006)13 in the cases Eğmez and Denizci against Cyprus), particular attention should be paid to the existence of a number of procedural safeguards surrounding taking persons into custody. Thus, the above provisions of CCP are important for preventing of ill-treatment. However, the CCP has been in force since 2003, i.e. at the time of events in three of these cases (Breabin, Colibaba and Gurgurov), which suggests that the mere existence of legislative provisions may be insufficient to prevent ill-treatment.

• Information is awaited on the practical application of the provisions of the CCP and CC taking into account the facts revealed in the Rosca Valeriu and Rosca Nicolae case, i.e. application of more lenient sanctions in cases of ill-treatment. Statistical information would be most welcome on the number of complaints regarding ill-treatment and the number of domestic judgments applying Article 309¹. Information is also awaited on measures to strengthen the preventive effect of the legislation against ill-treatment.  

• Information would be useful on training in the prevention and investigation of ill-treatment in detention, not only for police officers but also for prosecutors.

            2) Measures taken with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of investigations: According to Article 298 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Moldovan Parliament on 28/07/2006, complaints concerning actions of organs conducting criminal investigation may be addressed to the prosecutor who supervises this investigation. If a complaint concerns the prosecutor supervising or directly involved in the investigation, he or she is required to transmit it, together with his or her explanations, to a superior prosecutor within 24 hours. All declarations, complaints or other circumstances indicating that a person has been tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment shall be examined by a public prosecutor under Article 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a separate procedure. Refusal to initiate criminal investigation by the prosecutor may be appealed to a court pursuant to Article 313 of the CCP.

The Order of the Prosecutor General of 19/11/2007 on the organisation of investigation in cases of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment provides a duty upon prosecutors to open a criminal inquiry in cases where there is a suspicion of ill-treatment.  

• Information is awaited on the sanctions applicable in case of violation by prosecutors of their duty to initiate the criminal investigation. Statistical information on numbers of complaints of ill-treatment and numbers of criminal investigations initiated would be helpful in estimating the practical effect of these provisions.   

            3) Measures taken with a view to ensuring a possibility to claim compensation: At the material time, it was necessary to establish that the act at issue was illegal in order to claim compensation for the damage sustained.

The authorities have indicated that Articles 1403-1405 of the Civil Code establish responsibility and the possibility of compensation for damage caused by public authorities or by organs of criminal prosecution, public prosecutors and the judiciary. One example related to the application of these provisions has been provided.

• Information would be useful as to whether these Articles provide the objective liability of the state or whether their application is still subject establishing the guilt of the state agents concerned.

The authorities have also indicated that persons whose rights had been violated are entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage under the provisions of Law No. 1545 of 25/02/1998 “on compensation for damage caused by the illegal acts of criminal investigation bodies, prosecution and courts”. According to this Law, the damage caused shall be fully compensated, irrespective of the degree of liability of the agents of the criminal investigation organs, prosecution or courts

• Clarification would be welcome, taking into account that the Law No. 1545 has been in force since 1998, i.e. in the time of events of the three cases of this group where violation of Article 13 was found, regarding its application in any new cases where there was a claim for damages caused by the acts of ill-treatment.

            4) Publication and dissemination of the Court's judgments: The European Court’s judgment in the Corsacov case has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.justice.md). It has also been published in the Official Journal and sent out to the national courts, the Ministry of Interior and all sections of the police.

• Information is awaited on the publication and dissemination of the judgments in the other cases of the group.

- 8 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

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

These cases mainly concern violations related to the detention of the applicants on remand, the extension of such detention and the guarantees due to persons on remand, in particular:

-           the applicants' arrest and  detention on remand without reasonable suspicion of their having committed an offence (violation of Article 5§1(c) in the Muşuc case);

-           the unlawful detention of the applicants on account of the practice of keeping accused persons in detention on the sole ground that their case-files have been submitted to the trial court (violation of Article 5§1 in the Modârcă, Gorea, Stici, Ursu, and Ţurcan cases);

-           failure of domestic courts to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the extension of the applicants' detention on account of the use of abstract or stereotyped formulas and of the absence of an explanation on how the formalistic grounds provided by law applied to the applicants' cases (violation of Article 5§3 in the Şarban, Modârcă, Castraveţ, Ţurcan and Ţurcan, Stici, and Ursu cases);

-           failure to ensure a prompt examination of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention (21 days) (violation of Article 5§4 in the Şarban case);

The European Court also found a number of violations of the principle of the equality of arms on account of:

-           the lack of confidentiality of lawyer-client communications at the CFECC remand centre (Centre for Fighting against Economic Crimes and Corruption), related to the preparation of the applicants' requests for release due to existence of a glass partition in the meeting room (Modârcă and Castraveţ cases);

-           unjustified refusal by domestic courts to give access to the case-files, in particular to the evidence of a witness whose statements justified the application of the preventive measure, to the applicant and to his lawyer with a view to challenging the lawfulness of the detention (Ţurcan and Ţurcan case);

-           unjustified refusal of the domestic court to hear evidence from the witness whose alleged statements were used to justify the detention on remand of the applicant (Ţurcan and Ţurcan case) (violations of Article 5§4).

The Modârcă and Ţurcan cases also concern poor conditions of pre-trial detention in detention facilities under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice (violations of Article 3). The Şarban and Ţurcan cases concern the lack of medical assistance during detention in the CFECC, in Prison No 13 (former Prison No 3) and in the General Directorate for Fighting Organised Crime (GDFOC) respectively (violation of Article 3).

Individual Measures: The applicants are no longer detained on remand. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages suffered by the applicants.

General Measures:

            1) Violations of Article 5§1 and 5§3: The measures taken so far by the Moldovan authorities and the outstanding issues are summarised in memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2009)42-rev.

            2) Violation of Article 3: see the Ciorap group of cases (12066/02, Section 4.2) regarding poor conditions of detention in the penitentiary facilities of the Ministry of Justice and the Holomiov group of cases (30649/05, section 4.2) regarding the ill-treatment due to the lack of adequate medical treatment in detention;

            3) Violation of Article 5§4 in the Şarban case:

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

            4) Violation of Article 5§4 (the lack of confidentiality of lawyer-client communications): The glass partition in CFECC was dismantled in April 2007.

            5) Violation of Article 5§4 (refusal to give access to the case-files and refusal to hear the witnesses):

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

• Information is awaited on general measures taken to prevent violations of Article 5§4 by ensuring prompt examination of the lawfulness of pre-trial detention, ensuring access to applicant’s’ case-files and ending refusal to hear the witnesses.

The judgments of the European Court have been translated and published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Moldovan (Monitorul Oficial) as well as on the official internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.md).

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

- 3 cases concerning arrest and detention on remand without a reasonable suspicion[43]

35615/06          Cebotari, judgment of 13/11/207, final on 13/02/2008

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

12444/05           Leva, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

The case concerns a number of violations related to the applicants' arrest in November 2004 by officers of the Centre for Fighting Organised Crime and Corruption (“CFECC”) and their subsequent pre-trial detention, in particular:

-           the arrest and detention of the applicants on remand without reasonable suspicion of their having committed an offence (violations of Article 5§1 for both applicants);

-           the authorities' failure to inform them of additional charges against them (violation of Article 5§2 for both applicants);

-           the authorities' failure to ensure the confidentiality of lawyer-client communication because of the glass partition in the CFECC remand centre (violation of Article 5§4).

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

General measures:

1) As regards the authorities' failure to inform the applicants about additional charges brought against them

• An action plan/action report is awaited.

2) As regards the applicants' arrest without reasonable suspicion: This issue is being examined in the Muşuc group of cases (42440/06, Section 4.2).

3) As regards the lack of confidentiality of lawyer-client communication at the CFECC remand centre: the glass partition in CFECC has been dismantled in April 2007.

20289/02           Guţu, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 07/09/2007

This case concerns a number of violations related to the applicant’s unlawful arrest and detention due to her refusal on 30/12/2001 to accompany her minor son, suspected of theft, to a police station and to the subsequent proceedings resulting in her conviction for disobedience of a lawful order of the police.

Although Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the possibility of forcibly taking someone into police custody, it also establishes clear conditions, i.e. the person’s failure to appear before the investigating authority after being duly summonsed in the framework of an already open investigation. This condition not being met, the European Court found that the applicant's arrest and detention was unlawful (violation of Article 5§1).

The European Court also found that the police officers’ entry into the applicant's house was unlawful since none of the situations described in the Police Act of 18 December 1990 was applicable to the circumstances of the present case (violation of Article 8).

The European Court further noted that it had not been shown that there had been effective remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 5 and 8, considering that Article 4 of Law No.1545 allows claims for compensation only in case of acquittal (violation of Article 13).

Finally, the European Court also found a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the authorities’ failure to show that she had been summonsed to the appeal hearing concerning her alleged disobedience to the police officers’ order (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicant is no longer detained. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained. It results from the judgment that on 25/11/2002, the Prosecutor’s Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers involved since the applicant had been convicted by a final judgment of the offence of disobeying the lawful orders of police officers (§ 22).

• In view of the findings of the European Court, information is awaited on measures, either criminal or disciplinary, taken or planned in respect of the police officers at the origin of the violations found.

General measures:

1) Violation of Articles 5§1 and 8: It would appear that in this particular case the police officers acted in breach of domestic law, which has not been challenged in the Court’s judgment.

• However, clarification would be useful on the current legal framework governing the arrest of persons suspected of having committed an administrative offence. Information is also awaited on measures taken or envisaged in respect of the police, in particular on training measures, mainstreaming Human Rights and the Convention’s requirements in their daily practice, strengthening of their disciplinary liability, etc.

2) Violation of Article 6§1: see the Ziliberberg case (61821/00, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

3) Violation of Article 13: see the Corsacov case (18944/02, Section 4.2).

4) Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court: The judgment has been translated and published on the official web site of the Ministry of Justice (http://justice.md/md/cedo/).

• Information is awaited on the wide dissemination of the judgment to all competent authorities together with circular letters and detailed instructions to be issued by higher authorities, in particular the Ministry of Interior and the Prosecutor General, to explain to all subordinates the obligations flowing from the judgment and their effects on the day-to-day practice. An explanatory note from the Supreme Court to all lower courts would also be useful.

41578/05           David, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 27/02/2008

This case concerns the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the applicant in the Central Psychiatric Hospital to undergo medical examinations to determine whether he was fit to plead in compensation proceedings he brought against the state(violation of Article 5§1 e)).

The European Court considered that the court order of 14/03/2004 to hospitalise the applicant was not aimed at protecting him or others but simply to check his fitness to plead and that the applicant had agreed. Thus from the moment that he made it know that he wanted to leave the hospital, his detention became arbitrary and unlawful within the terms of Article 5§1 e) (§40 of judgment).

Individual measures: The applicant was released from the hospital on 29/04/2005. The European Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

General measures:

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

- 2 cases concerning poor conditions of detention in the police remand centres and lack of effective remedy in this respect

9190/03            Becciev, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

7101/06            Malai, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

These cases concern ill-treatment of the applicants due to the poor conditions of detention on remand in the detention facilities of the Ministry of Home Affairs. In both cases the conditions of detention in remand centres were found to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment due to inadequacy of the sanitary conditions, ventilation, access to daylight, heating, opportunities for recreation, insufficient food, exposure to smoking in the cell, etc. (violations of Article 3).

The Malai cases concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3).

The Becciev and Malai cases also concern detention on remand and its extension without sufficient and relevant grounds (violations of Article 5§3).

Finally, the Becciev case concerns domestic courts' refusal to hear a witness for the defence (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: In both cases the applicants are no longer detained on remand. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

General measures:

            1) Poor conditions of detention in police remand centres

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities: Most of the legal framework governing the conditions of detention has been changed by the new Enforcement Code, which entered into force on 01/07/2005, and other new laws.

- Overcrowding: The new Enforcement Code provides for a minimum of 4 m² for each detainee.

- Cell conditions: In 2005, 1500 blankets, 2000 towels, 2000 sheets, 2000 pillowcases, 1000 mattresses and 1000 pillows were acquired and distributed. Provisions have been introduced banning smoking in cells and other parts of prisons, detainees being allowed to smoke only in specially equipped rooms.

- Food and hygiene: Government Decision No. 609 of 29 May 2006 established minimum daily food standards, providing for three warm meals per day. The same Decision provides for distribution for detained persons of soap and washing powder for hygienic use.

- Prisoners' free time: Educational, cultural and sports programmes have been drawn up and implemented in prisons as a framework for detainees' free time. Psychologists and social workers are carrying out social integration programmes.

• The information provided by the Moldovan authorities is being assessed.

            2) Lack of an effective remedy against poor conditions of detention

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities: A Supreme Court of Justice decision of 19/06/2000 laid down that where domestic law does not provide a right to an effective remedy against any right safeguarded in the Convention, the competent court shall directly apply the provisions of the Convention, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.

Article 53 of the Moldovan Convention provides that the state is responsible for prejudice resulting from errors by prosecutors and courts in criminal proceedings. Article 1405 of the Civil Code contains a similar provision concerning the state's responsibility for judicial errors. A concrete mechanism for the reparation of judicial errors is provided in Act No. 1545-XIII of 25/02/1998.

An example is given: in the case of Drugalev against the Ministries of the Interior and Finance, the applicant was awarded 15 000 Lei in respect of non‑pecuniary damages.

With a view to ensuring respect for the right to an effective remedy, a Complaints Committee has been set up as an independent body with the mandate to deal with prisoners' complaints at any time during their sentence.

• The information provided by the Moldovan authorities is being assessed.

3) Other violations in relation to the applicants’ detention on remand

General measures are examined in the Sarban group of cases (3456/05, Section 4.2).

4) Publication and dissemination:  All judgments have been translated and published in the Official Journal of the Moldovan Republic (Monitorul Oficial) as well as on the official internet site of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.justice.md) and sent out to all appropriate authorities.

- 3 cases concerning poor conditions of detention in penitentiary establishments and lack of effective remedy in this respect

12066/02          Ciorap, judgment of 19/06/2007, final on 19/09/2007

8721/05+          Istratii and others, judgment of 27/03/2007, final on 27/06/2007

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

All these cases concern the poor conditions under which the applicants were held in pre-trial detention in facilities under the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, due in particular to overcrowding, unhygienic conditions, presence of parasitic insects, exposure to cigarette smoke, lack of ventilation, absence of outdoor exercise, inadequacy of food, lack of access to daylight or electricity, etc.

- Force-feeding of a detainee on hunger-strike: In the Ciorap case, the European Court found that the repeated force-feeding of the applicant while on hunger-strike against his detention conditions as well as the manner of doing it amounted to torture.

- Lack of special medical assistance during pre-trial detention: The Istratii case also concern the lack of medical assistance during detention for one of the three applicants who had recently undergone surgery.

The Ostrovar case concerns the lack of an effective remedy into his allegations of poor conditions of detention (violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3).

The Istratii and others case also concerns detention on remand and its extension without sufficient and relevant grounds (violation of Article 5§3), as well as the lack of confidentiality of lawyer-client communications at the CFECC remand centre (violation of Article 5§4).

The Ciorap case concerns the refusal by the Supreme Court to examine the applicant's complaint regarding the force-feeding, on the ground that he had not paid court fees, in breach of his right to access to court (violation of Article 6§1).

The Ciorap and Ostrovar cases concern violations of the right to respect of correspondence and family life (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: In all cases, except the Ciorap case, the applicants are no longer detained. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

Mr Ciorap ended his hunger strike on 04/10/2001. On 17/06/2008 he was transferred from prison No. 13 (former No. 3) of Chisinau to Cricova prison No 15. On 01/08/2008 and 06/11/2008, the applicant's representative lodged extensive submissions with respect to alleged violations of the applicant's rights related to his detention. On 28/10/2008 and 19/11/2008 these submissions were transmitted to the authorities.

• Information submitted by Mr Ciorap: in his letter dated 6/03/2009 the applicant alleges continued violation of his rights under Convention by the administration of Cricova prison No 15. He refers in particular to inadequate food, in particular when he is being escorted to the court where he has no access to food or water (sometimes for a whole day) prior to his return to prison.

• Information is awaited on measures taken in respect of the applicant's allegations. Information is awaited on measures to ensure the applicant received enough to eat, especially on days when he participates in court hearings

General measures:

            1) Poor conditions of pre-trial detention

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities:Most of the legal framework governing the prison system, including conditions of detention, has been changed by the present Enforcement Code, which entered into force on 01/07/2005, and other new laws.

- Overcrowding: The Enforcement Code provides a minimum of 4 m² for each prisoner. In an effort to reduce prison overcrowding, a Bill has been drawn up to amend the Criminal Code, reducing minimum sentences for less serious offences and increasing the number of offences in respect of which alternative penalties may be applied.

• Information is awaited on the details of new legislation and on its practical impact.

- Cell conditions: In 2005, 1500 blankets, 2000 towels, 2000 sheets, 2000 pillowcases, 1000 mattresses and 1000 pillows were acquired and distributed. Measures were taken to improve conditions in Chisinau No. 3 Penitentiary with the repair of 129 cells. New provisions have been introduced banning smoking in cells and other parts of prisons, detainees being allowed to smoke only in specially equipped rooms.

• Information is awaited on the legal basis for changes in these and other material conditions of detention, such as provision of daylight and sufficient electrical light, ventilation, beds, etc. in order to secure sustainable and continuous improvement.

- Diet, medicines and care: New minimum daily diet standards have been established to improve the quantity and quality of rations. All prisons also now possess all major types of medicaments, particularly those needed to treat prisoners suffering from tuberculosis. Rules on the provision of medical care in prisons are in the process of being drafted and adopted.

• Information is awaited on legislation establishing standards on other aspects of hygiene, including accessibility of toilets and showers for detainees, disinfection of cells from insects, etc.

- Prisoners' free time:  Educational, cultural and sports programmes have been drawn up and implemented in prisons as a framework for detainees' free time. Psychologists and social workers are carrying out social integration programmes.

• Detailed information is awaited on the possibility of outdoor exercise.

- Force-feeding of detainees on hunger strike: The force-feeding of the applicant was carried out on the basis of instructions regarding the detention of persons refusing to take food and the manner of their force-feeding, adopted by Ministry of Health and Ministry of Justice in 1996, which prohibited the force-feeding of detainees.

The European Court noted that on 9/10/2003 Article 33 of the Law on Remand (which had provided for the force-feeding of detainees on hunger-strike) was amended expressly to prohibit the force-feeding of detainees.

• Information is expected as to whether the 1996 instructions have been withdrawn, on implementation measures taken with respect to the new instructions based on the Law of 2003), on possible training for prison staff, etc. A copy of the new Law would also be useful.

            2) Lack of medical assistance in detention

General measures are examined in the Holomiov group of cases (30649/05, Section 4.2).

            3) Lack of an effective remedy in respect of poor conditions of detention

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities:A Supreme Court of Justice decision of 19/06/2000 laid down that where domestic law does not provide a right to an effective remedy against any right safeguarded in the Convention, the competent court shall directly apply the provisions of the Convention, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.

Article 53 of the Moldovan Convention provides that the state is responsible for prejudice resulting from errors by prosecutors and courts in criminal proceedings. Article 1405 of the Civil Code contains a similar provision concerning the state's responsibility for judicial errors. A concrete mechanism for the reparation of judicial errors is provided in Act No. 1545-XIII of 25/02/1998. An example is given: in the case of Drugalev against the Ministries of the Interior and Finance, the applicant was awarded 15 000 Lei in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

With a view to ensuring respect for the right to an effective remedy, a Complaints Committee has been set up as an independent body with the mandate to deal with prisoners' complaints at any time during their sentence.

• Assessment: It would appear that the information provided by the authorities mostly relates to the possibility to challenge the actions of prosecutors or judges. It remains unclear to what extent this remedy can be used to improve conditions of detention.

• More clarification in this respect is awaited.

4) Excessive length of pre-trial detention: General measures are being examined in the Sarban group of cases (3456/05, Section 4.2).

            5) Right to a fair trial (Ciorap case): The European Court noted that in accordance with Article 85 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant should have been exempted from paying court fees due to the nature of his claim (damage to his health caused by the actions of the authorities), regardless of his ability to pay. However the domestic court had not taken into consideration the nature of his complaint. The Moldovan authorities have indicated that the European Court's judgment has been published in the Official Journal and sent out to national courts.

            6) Right to respect for correspondence and family life:

• Information is expected on the measures taken or planned to avoid similar violations.

            7) Publication and dissemination: All judgments of the European Court have been translated and published in the Official Journal of the Moldovan Republic (Monitorul Oficial) as well as on the official internet site of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.justice.md) and sent out to all appropriate authorities.

*53487/99          Meriakri, judgment of 01/03/2005, final on 06/07/2005 - Striking-out[44]

- 2 cases concerning ill-treatment in detention due to the lack of proper medical assistance

30649/05          Holomiov, judgment of 07/11/2006, final on 07/02/2007

41088/05          Boicenco, judgment of 11/07/2006, final on 11/10/2006 and of 10/06/2008, final on 10/09/2008

These cases concern ill-treatment of the applicants due to the lack of proper medical assistance in detention. In both cases the applicants suffered from specific health problems which required specialist medical care and could not be addressed by general health practitioners (if any) available in detention facilities under the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Justice (violations of Article 3).

In the Holomiov case, the European Court noted that the applicant’s ill-treatment resulted not from the lack of medical care in general but rather from the lack of medical care suited to his particular condition. In the Boicenco case, the European Court noted that ill-treatment resulted from the authorities’ failure to provide medical care of an adequate level, required by the seriousness of his medical condition.

The Boicenco case also concerns ill-treatment of the applicant by police and the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation in this respect (substantive and procedural violations of Article 3).

Both cases concern the absence of legal basis for the applicants’ continued detention in the absence of a court order to this effect (violations of Article 5§1).

The Boicenco case concerns the fact that the applicant was unable to secure his release pending trial as he belonged to a particular category of persons excluded by Article 191 of the Code Criminal Procedure from such possibility (violation of Article 5§3).

The Holomiov case also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The Boicenco case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right of individual petition due to the refusal of the authorities to allow lawyers and an independent doctor to access the applicant and his medical file (violation of Article 34).

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

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicants have been convicted and, if so whether they have access to proper medical assistance in their current situation.

In the Boicenco case on 17/07/2006 a criminal investigation was reopened against agents of the CFECC. Subsequently, the case-file was transmitted to the Anti-corruption Prosecution Office. An additional enquiry was ordered into the facts relied on by the applicant's wife and lawyer. On 21/02/2007 the Prosecutor of the Anti-corruption Prosecution Office, taking into account the evidence gathered in the course of this enquiry, issued an order closing the proceedings.

• More details are awaited on the new investigation, in particular on how the shortcomings identified by the European Court have been remedied and on the investigatory steps taken in this respect. Information is also awaited as to whether the applicant may challenge the prosecutor’s decision to close the investigation. The need for further individual measures is being assessed.

General measures:

            1) Ill-treatment in detention due to the lack of proper medical assistance

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities: Rules on the provision of medical care in prisons are being drafted and adopted.

The Department of Penitentiary Institutions of the Republic of Moldova has signed contracts for 2004-2007 with specialist medical health institutions (including the Republican Centre for Diagnosis, the Republican Hospital of neurology and neurosurgery) to improve the quality of special medical care given to detainees.

• Information is expected on progress in adopting new rules on medical care for detainees. The authorities might wish to consider in particular paragraph 29 of the 2009 CPT report on its visit to Moldova in this regard.

            2) Ill-treatment by police officers and failure to carry out effective investigation: General measures are examined in the Corsacov group of cases (18944/02, Section 4.2).

3) Absence of legal basis for pre-trial detention: See Sarban group of cases (3456/05, Section 4.2).

            4) Impossibility to obtain release pending trial: Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended on 28/07/2006 and 21/12/2006. In particular, the provision which excluded the possibility of release under judicial control for a particular category of persons was removed (see Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2009)42-rev, paragraph 14 (Sarban group of cases).

            5) Excessive length of criminal proceedings: General measures to prevent similar violations of the Convention in civil proceedings are being examined in the Cravcenco group of cases.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new similar violations in criminal proceedings.

6) Violation of the right to individual petition:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged by the authorities to ensure that lawyers have access to their clients in detention and on other possible measures to prevent new, similar violations.

7) Publication and dissemination of the Court's judgments:

These judgments gave been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.md). They have also been sent for publication in the Official Journal and sent out to national courts, the Ministry of Interior and all sections of the police.

- 48 cases concerning failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic judgments[45]

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Luntre group)

17211/03           Dolneanu, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 13/02/2008

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the belated payment of an amount due to him, on the basis of a decision of the Parliament adopted in 1994 for the partial recovery of the depreciation of his deposits at the State Savings Bank (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

The European Court noted that the domestic courts had established the illegality of the interference with the applicant’s right and that the delay in payment was attributable to the Ministry of Finance due to the lack of budgetary resources.

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Court noted that the domestic courts had admitted the absence of any legal basis for awarding compensation to the applicant.

Individual measures: In 2004 the applicant received the amount due to him. The European Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged to prevent new, similar violations and in particular dissemination of the judgment to the Ministry of Finance.

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

This case concerns a violation of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions due to the annulment of the privatisation of a hotel acquired by the applicant in 1999. This annulment was made possible by a provision of the former Civil Code (Article 86) conferring on state organisations the authority to claim, without any time-limit, restitution of state property found in allegedly unlawful possession of other organisations or citizens (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: In its judgment of 24/02/2009, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the restitution of the hotel and the land on which it stands to the applicant within three months of the date upon which the relevant judgment became final, failing which it ordered the payment of just satisfaction for pecuniary damages.

• Information is awaited on the action taken by the respondent state in response to this judgment.

General measures: Under the present Civil Code of 2002 the possibility for state organisations to lodge a lawsuit without time limit has been abolished.

• Information is awaited on publication and dissemination of the judgment.

                        - 8 cases mainly concerning the quashing of final domestic judgments[46]

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 and of 19/10/2010 – Friendly settlement

11712/04           Ceachir, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

75/07                Duca, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

35367/08          Ipteh SA and others, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010 and of 29/06/2010, final on 29/10/2010 - Striking out

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

36492/02           Bujnita, judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 16/04/2007

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, due to the unjustified quashing of a final judicial decision acquitting him on a rape charge (violation of Article 6§1).

In June 2001 the applicant was acquitted of rape by Râşcani District Court. This judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal's final judgment of 30/10/2001. In December 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of the Râşcani District Court and the Court of Appeal. He argued that those courts had assessed the evidence erroneously and unlawfully. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld his request and declared the applicant guilty of rape.

The European Court found that the grounds for the Deputy Prosecutor General's motion to annul were insufficient to justify challenging the finality of the judgment and using this extraordinary remedy to that end as they were based on no new fact or breach of procedural guarantees. The Court therefore considered that the state authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

Individual measures: The European Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress would be for the applicant's final acquittal of 30/10/2001 to be confirmed by the authorities and for his conviction to be erased with effect from that date.

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities: By its judgement of 26/11/2007 the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the applicant’s final acquittal of 26/06/2001. As a result, the Ministry of Interior erased the conviction of the applicant from his criminal record.

• Assessment: No further individual measures seem to be necessary.

General measures: The new Code of Criminal procedure, entered into force in 2003, amended the provisions concerning notably the Prosecutor’s power to lodge an extraordinary request for annulment of a final judgment (Section 369 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure). It remains to be assessed to what extent the new provisions meet the Convention requirements and in particular the principle of legal certainty. This assessment is underway.

• Information is awaited on the publication of the full text of the European Court's judgment and its dissemination to all relevant authorities, in particular to all courts and prosecutors.

40663/98          Asito, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006, and judgment of 24/04/2007 (Article 41) - Friendly settlement[47]

39391/04           Business Si Investitii Pentru Toti, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court due to the failure by domestic courts to consider its claim or to involve it as a party to proceedings which concerned its rights and obligations as well as to the dismissal of its request to reopen the said proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The European court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicant has requested reopening of the proceedings.

General measures: To date the authorities have provided no information.

- 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

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the refusal by the Supreme Court of Justice to examine their appeals because they did not pay court fees (violation of Article 6§1). In this respect the European Court, noting that under Article 437 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, appeals on points of law before the Supreme Court of Justice may not be subject to any exemption from court fees, partial or total, irrespective of the appellant’s financial situation, took the view that such a blanket prohibition of waiving court fees itself raises an issue under Article 6§1 (§41 of the judgment). Further, in the Tudor-Comert case the European Court found that no waiver of court fees was possible for legal entities (§26 of the judgment).

The Clionov case also concerns the belated enforcement of a final domestic judgment awarding the applicant compensation for his employer’s failure to pay him monthly invalidity benefit (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The domestic judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour in the Clionov case was enforced.

• Information is awaited as to whether the authorities have informed the applicants of the possibility to request reopening of the proceedings.

General measures:

            1) Late enforcement of final domestic judgments: see Luntre group (2916/02, Section 4.2).

            2) Right of access to a court:

a) Blanket prohibition of waiving court fees contained in Article 437 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure: On 17/04/2008 the Code of civil procedure was modified. In particular, it provides the possibility to request exemption from, or deferred payment of court fees. In such cases the appeal on the points of law shall not be declined and the panel of three judges shall decide whether to grant the request (these changes concern all the three cases).

b) Possibility of waiving the court fees for legal entities: On 4/06/2010 the legislative amendments were further complemented by changes to Article 85 § 4 of the Code of civil procedure to the effect that legal entities were also entitled to request exemption from court fees. Article 86 has been complemented with a second paragraph providing the possibility for legal entities subject to bankruptcy proceedings to pay the court fee after the consideration of the case, but no later than 6 months from the date of the court decision.

3) Publication and dissemination: The Clionov judgment has been translated and published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.md).

• Information is awaited on translation, publication and dissemination of the Istrate and Tudor-Comert judgments.

289/04+            Popovici, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the failure of the Supreme Court of Justice, while deciding on the appeal against the applicant’s acquittal, to hear him in person before convicting him (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court observed that having quashed the decision to acquit the applicant reached at first instance, the Supreme Court determined the criminal charges against the applicant, convicted him on almost all charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment, without hearing evidence from him in person and without producing evidence in his presence at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument. The European Court found that in these circumstances, the Supreme Court of Justice could not have been properly examined without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicant in person and by certain witnesses. The European Court noted that this appeared also to have been contrary to Articles 451 and 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The case further concerns the breach of the applicant’s presumption of innocence on account of a public statement made by a high-ranking official, the Secretary of the Superior Security Council, in which he declared in an interview with a newspaper that the applicant was guilty before he had been so proved according to law. These statements encouraged the public to believe the applicant guilty and prejudiced the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority, breaching his right to the presumption of innocence (violation of Article 6§2).

Finally, the case concerns poor material conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention (violation of Article 3) and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3) as well as the domestic courts’ failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the extension of the applicants' detention (violations of Article 5§3).

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

The applicant is currently serving a life sentence in Rezina Prison. The European Court recalled that “where an individual has been convicted following proceedings that have entailed breaches of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, a retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation.”

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicant has requested the reopening of proceedings, under Articles 453 and 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2003.

General Measures:

1) Conviction in absentia at appeal stage: It results from the judgment that in convicting the applicant in his absence, the Supreme Court of Justice acted in breach of the domestic legislation (§ 72 of the judgment).

Information provided by the Moldovan authorities: The Moldovan authorities provided information about the publication in the Official Journal of the Republic of Moldova of a translated excerpt from the judgment. The full text of the judgment has been sent for publication on the official web-site of the Ministry of Justice (http://justice.md/md/cedo/).

• Information is awaited on the dissemination of the judgment to all courts as well as on other possible measures to ensure domestic courts’ compliance with domestic legislation.

2) Breach of presumption of innocence: It remains unclear whether or how Moldovan law, e.g. the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Criminal Code, ensures respect of the presumption of innocence.

• Information is thus awaited in this respect, as well as on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations.

3) Poor conditions of pre-trial detention and lack of an effective remedy in this respect: See the Becciev group (9190/03, Section 4.2.).

4) Excessive length of pre-trial detention: See the Sarban group (3456/05, Section 4.2).

25236/02           Navoloaca, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009

This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of an erroneous application of national law by the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) in criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

As third-instance court in the present case the SCJ was prevented by the provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure from reviewing the facts of the case and making a fresh decision on it, and in particular from directly examining the witnesses in the case. Despite this prohibition the SCJ assessed anew witness statements given before the lower courts and quashed their acquittal judgments on the basis of its new assessment.

The European Court considered that in a case where charges were entirely based on witness statements, the SCJ could not have convicted and sentenced the applicant without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicant and the witnesses. While the SCJ did not have the power to carry out a direct examination of the witnesses’ testimony it did have the power, under the law applicable at the material time, to order a rehearing. The Court stated that the fairness of the trial in this case required a rehearing to be ordered by the SCJ.

The decision of the SCJ was made, moreover, in the applicant’s absence.

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

• Information is awaited on whether the applicant has requested the reopening of proceedings.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to prevent new similar violations.

32263/03           Tocono and Profesorii Prometeişti, judgment of 26/06/2007, final on 26/09/2007

The case concerns the unfairness of proceedings in which registration of a school founded by the applicants was disputed. The applicant alleged that that a judge on the panel of the Supreme Court of Justice was not impartial because his son had been expelled from the school and had threatened retaliation.

The European Court considered that, under Article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was up to the judge in question to inform the parties of a possible incompatibility and considered accordingly that his impartiality was open to objective doubt (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: As a result of the unfair proceedings, the Profesorii Prometeisti Foundation was struck from the list of founders of the school, while Tocono had been obliged to enter into association with three other entities. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on publication and dissemination of the European court’s judgment. Information would also be useful on whether an aggrieved party may request the re-opening of proceedings in similar situations.

33066/04           Mancevschi, judgment of 07/10/2008, final on 07/01/2009

This case concerns a violation of the right to respect for the private life of the applicant, an advocate, due to searches carried out at his office and apartment in May 2004 by the investigating authorities in criminal proceedings against his client.

The European Court observed that the search warrant issued by the investigating judge repeated almost word-for word the order given by the investigator and was formulated in extremely broad terms, giving unfettered discretion to the investigator to search for anything he wanted in both the applicant’s apartment and office. With regard to the implications that such a search could have had for lawyer-client confidentiality, the Court noted that it would have expected the investigating judge to have given compelling and detailed reasons for authorising the search and for putting in place particular measures to safeguard privileged material protected by professional secrecy. In the absence of any special safeguard to protect lawyer-client confidentiality the Court stated that the domestic authorities had failed in their duty to give “relevant and sufficient” reasons for issuing the search warrants, and therefore their interference with the applicant’s right for his private life was not “necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 8).

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

• Clarification is awaited as to the applicant's current situation.

General measures: The relevant articles of the new Code of Criminal Procedure were amended in 2006. However, it remains to be addressed to what extent the new provisions comply with the Convention’s requirements, as set out in this judgment.

• Information is awaited:

- on current rules governing searches and seizure in lawyers’ premises and in particular on the existence of any particular provisions (either contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or other legislation) safeguarding privileged material protected by professional secrecy.

- on the publication of the full version of the European Court’s judgment and wide dissemination, in particular to all courts and prosecutors, with appropriate instructions from the Prosecutor General.

25198/02          Iordachi and others, judgment of 10/02/2009, final on 14/09/2009, rectified on 14/09/2009

This case concerns the absence of safeguards in the relevant legislation in the field of interception of telephone communications. The application was lodged by five members of “Lawyers for Human Rights”, a non-governmental organisation specialised in the representation of applicants before the European Court, claiming that they ran a serious risk of having their telephones tapped as a result of their activity, due to the state legislation in force.

The European Court, having noted that after 2003 some major improvements were carried out in the domestic legislation concerning the secret surveillance, found however, with regard to the initial stage of interception of telephone communications, that it did not sufficiently clearly define:

-       the nature of offences which may give rise to the issue of an interception order;

-       the categories of persons liable to have their telephones taped;

-       the time-limit on telephone tapping.

In respect of the second stage of the surveillance system, when the tapping actually takes place, the Court observed that:

-       the role of the investigating judge was not clearly defined, since there was no provision for informing the investigating judge with the results of the surveillance or asking him to review whether the requirements of the law have been complied with;

-       the were no clear rules about the screening of the intelligence obtained;

-       the law guaranteeing the secrecy of lawyer-client communications does not provide for any procedure which would give substance to the above provision.

In light of the fact that in 2007 the Moldovan courts had authorised virtually all requests for interception made by the prosecuting authorities, the Court concluded that the legislation regulating the system of secret telephone surveillance was largely overused and did not provide protection against abuse of State power (violation of Article 8).

7/08                  Tănase, judgment of 27/04/2010 – Grand Chamber

The case concerns a violation of applicant’s right to stand as a candidate in free elections and to take his seat in Parliament if elected, thus ensuring the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature (violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1). The violation resulted from the adoption in 2003 of Law No. 273, which, inter alia, prohibited Moldovan nationals holding dual citizenship from becoming members of Parliament. The applicant, holding dual Moldovan and Romanian nationality was candidate for an opposition party.

The European Court found that the ban on the election of persons holding multiple citizenship imposed by Law No. 273 placed a disproportionate general restriction on electoral rights. It stated that there could be other means to achieve the legitimate aim of protecting Moldovan laws, institutions and national security, e.g. through imposing sanctions for illegal conduct, which would have a preventive effect.

                       - 9 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

25367/05           Flux No. 7, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

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

All these cases concern violations of the applicants’ (national newspapers and journalists) right to freedom of expression on account of holding them liable for defamation in civil proceedings, between 2001-2004, and subsequent orders to pay damages for having published articles criticising alleged abuses by high-ranking officials (violation of Article 10).

In all cases the European Court observed that the domestic courts failed to distinguish between value-judgments and statements of facts. The European Court also noted that the domestic courts refused to consider evidence adduced by the applicants in support of the impugned factual statements, as well as to distinguish between the statements made by the applicant newspapers themselves and the quotations of third parties or from public documents. 

In the Flux No 2 case, the applicant newspaper was fined for the announcement of an article to be published. The European Court noted that the domestic courts refused to take into consideration the main article, even though it was never found to be defamatory or untrue.

In the Flux No 3 case, the applicant newspaper was found liable for defamation for the title of an article based on the accusation made by the head of the Department for Combating Corruption against the Vice-President of Parliament, Mr. V. Matei, to the effect that he was protecting a criminal gang. The European Court noted that the domestic courts found as defamatory one statement about which even the plaintiff had never complained, and that this situation in itself would be sufficient to find a violation, especially as the statement proved to be accurate.

In the Ţara and Poiată case, the applicant was found liable for defamation for two articles citing letters written by third persons and providing information from official reports. The European Court found that this information could have reasonably appeared to the author of the articles as reliable. 

In the Flux and Samson case, the applicant newspaper was fined for being unable to prove the truth of several statements made in an article. The European Court considered that to require the applicant newspaper to prove the truth of its statements, while at the same time ignoring the evidence adduced to support its statements, could not be justified as necessary in a democratic society.

In the Flux case, the applicant newspaper was found liable for defamation for an article alleging that the leader of the Communist Party parliamentary group, Mr. Stepaniuc, and the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, Mr. V. Mişin, had personally profited from the changes to the taxation system governing fuel imports made in favour of major fuel importers. The European Court found that with the passage of time, it becomes more difficult for the media to prove the facts on which they may have relied, and that the damage caused to the plaintiff was also substantially diminished.

In the Flux No 4 case, the European Court noted that the domestic courts paid no attention to the evidence adduced by the applicant in support of its statements, and that the Supreme Court of Justice failed even to mention an important piece of evidence (the secret service report) in its judgment or assess it or dismiss it on any ground.

In the Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel case the applicant newspaper was heavily fined for having published an article containing allegations regarding the government’s non-transparent and wasteful manner of spending public money in its deals with a private investment fund. With a view to preventing any new publication about the investment fund, the domestic court ordered the seizure of the newspaper's office equipment and the freezing of their bank account. As a result, the applicant newspaper had to close down. The European Court noted that the applicant newspaper took extensive steps to warn readers of the unreliable character of the rumour on which it was reporting, but that the domestic courts relied only on a part of a sentence taken out of context, which could be arguably considered as a factual statement.

In the Flux No 5 case, the applicant newspaper was found liable for defamation for having published statements, quoted from an open letter addressed by the daughter of an alleged victim of abusive criminal proceedings, Ms Duca, to various high ranking politicians and international organisations, about abuses committed by the prosecuting and judicial authorities. Considering that the complaints in the open letter were not baseless, the European Court found that there were no strong reasons to punish the applicant newspaper for assisting Ms Duca’s daughter in the dissemination of her letter and that the interference had not corresponded to a pressing social need.

Finally, in Flux No 7 case the applicant newspaper was found guilty of defamation of V.S. - a president of the communist faction in Parliament – by publishing an article about apartments built for public money in a the former Parliament warehouse. Four officials, including V.S, were to live in the apartments. The Court found that the interference with the applicant’s right was not necessary in a democratic society taking into account that the information concerned an important public issue and was not aimed at criticising V.S. (he only was mentioned twice in the article), but at criticising Parliament. Moreover, the applicant attempted in good faith to verify the facts on which it reported and clearly informed the readers that it had been unable to verify the truth of the information and therefore avoided presenting rumours as established facts.

Individual measures: In all these cases, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as all the costs incurred in connection with the finings.

• Assessment: No further individual measures seem necessary, except in the Timpul Info-Magasin and Anghel case, where information is expected on the current situation of the applicant newspaper.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged, in particular by the Supreme Court of Justice, to ensure the application by domestic courts of the requirements of Article 10 with respect to high-ranking officials. Information is also awaited on the wide publication and dissemination of the judgments.

Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgments in the Flux (No.2) and Flux (No.3) cases have been translated and published on the web-site of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.md), sent for publication in the Official Journal and distributed to domestic courts.

 • Information is awaited on publication and dissemination of the other judgments in this group.

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

25196/04           Christian Democratic People’s Party No. 2, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010

These cases concern interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly of the applicants (a former non-governmental organisation and a number of Moldovan nationals (Hyde Park) and an opposition political party (Christian Democratic People’s Party) as a result of the rejection by the Chişinău Municipal Council of their applications to hold demonstrations.

The European Court found that interference with the applicants’ right did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not necessary in a democratic society (violations of Article 11). 

In the Hyde Park cases the European Court found that the Municipal Council based its decisions on reasons other than those provided for in the Assemblies Act in force at the material time and that those reasons were not relevant and sufficient.

In the Christian Democratic People’s Party case, the Court found that the slogans, which were interpreted by national authorities as a call to violence and hatred and led to prohibition of the demonstration, were a form of expression of opinion about an issue of major public interest. The Court noted that even if in theory violent clashes could happen as a result of the demonstration, it was the responsibility of the police to ensure public order.

The Hyde Park and others No. 4 case also concerns the unlawful arrest and detention of the applicants after a demonstration authorised by a court judgment (violation of Article 5§1c).

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

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.   

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 11:

• To date the authorities have provided no information.

            2) Violation of Article 5§1: see the Muşuc group of cases (42440/06, Section 4.2)

41827/02           Kommersant Moldovy, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007

The case concerns a violation of the applicant company's right to freedom of expression due to a decision of the Moldovan Economic Court ordering the closure of its newspaper (violation of Article 10).

This decision was based on the fact that between June and September 2001 the applicant company published a series of articles criticising the Moldovan authorities for their actions in respect of the break-away region of Moldova ( “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” or “MRT”) and reproducing harsh criticism of the Moldovan government by certain leaders of the “MRT” and the Russian Federation.

The European Court observed that in their decisions the domestic courts did not consider the question of whether it was necessary to interfere as they did in the applicant's rights. It noted, in particular, that they did not specify which passages of the articles at issue were objectionable and in what way they endangered national security or the territorial integrity of the country or defamed the President and the country. The only analysis made was limited to the issue of whether the articles could be considered as reproductions in good faith of public statements for which the applicant could not be held responsible in accordance with domestic law. The Court considered that the domestic courts did not give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference in question and was not satisfied that they “applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10” or that they “based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts”.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered by the applicant company. Moreover, the applicant company was subsequently re-registered under the name “Kommersant-Plus” and has resumed publication of the newspaper after only a brief pause.

• Applicant’s submission: The applicant’s representative states that on 29/05/2007, i.e. about 1½ months after the European Court’s judgment became final, the applicant requested a revision procedure on the basis of Article 450-g of the Moldovan Code of Civil Procedure, which provides the possibility of revision after a judgment of the European Court. However, this request was rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice on 4/10/2007 on the sole ground that it was lodged outside the 3-month time-limit provided by the Code. This decision appears to be in contradiction with the position of the Supreme Court of Justice adopted while deciding to grant the revision request in another case, namely “the Christian Democratic Peoples’ Party” (judgment of 14/02/2006). In that case, the Supreme Court of Justice indicated that the 3-month period should be calculated as from the date on which the European Court’s judgment became final.

On 13/11/2007 the submission of the applicant’s representative was submitted to the authorities for comments.

In their letter of 1/04/2008, the Moldovan authorities indicated that Article 450-g of the Code of Civil Procedure provided that revision requests must be submitted within three months as from the delivery of the judgment of the European Court and not within three months after this judgment becomes final.  Moreover, the authorities did not comment on the inconsistency of the case-law of the Moldovan Supreme Court of Justice on this issue.

• Assessment: It is recalled that Article 450-g was introduced into the Code of Civil Procedure to give applicants having won a case in Strasbourg the possibility of seeking revision of their case at national level, thus ensuring compliance by the Republic of Moldova with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention. Thus, according to the aim of Article 450-g, it should be interpreted in the light of the Convention, and in particular of Article 46. However, Article 46 refers to final judgments of the European Court.

Consequently, the Moldovan authorities’ interpretation of Article 450-g in this case is contradictory to the Convention and thus cannot be considered as a way of discharging their obligations under the Convention, namely the obligation to undertake the individual measure which guarantees the applicant restitutio in integrum.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged with a view to providing the applicant the restitutio in integrum. In this respect, information would be useful as to whether the applicant may request the revision of his case at national level, in the light of the above comments on Article 450-g.

General measures: The violation found in this case seems to arise from the fact that the domestic courts did not give sufficient reasons for their decisions, when they decided that it would be necessary to interfere with freedom of expression. Consequently, a change in domestic courts' practice in this respect appears to be necessary.

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities:The translation of the judgment of the European Court was published in theOfficial Journal and the internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.md).

• Further information is awaited on other measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations. Information is also awaited on measures taken or envisaged (amendments to the legislation or change of the case-law) to guarantee that the mechanism provided by Article 450-g of the Code of Civil Procedure complies with the Convention.

14277/04           Guja, judgment of 12/02/2008 – Grand Chamber

This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular of his right to impart information, as a result of his dismissal, on 3/03/2003, from his employment as the Head of the Press Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office for having disclosed to a national newspaper two letters received by the Prosecutor’ General’s Office, neither of which bore any sign of being confidential.

In the first letter, written on the Parliament’s official headed paper, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Mr. V. Mişin, asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to “get personally involved in the case” of four police officers charged with illegal detention and ill-treatment of detainees. The second letter, written on official Ministry headed paper, was addressed by the vice-minister of Internal Affaires to the Deputy Prosecutor General. It revealed that one of the police officers had been re-employed by the minister, despite his conviction, among other things, for causing physical suffering and abuse of power accompanied by acts of violence, use of firearm and torture.

On 21/03/2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the Prosecutor General’s Office seeking his reinstatement. On 16/09/2003, his action was dismissed by the Court of appeal on the ground that the applicant had breached his obligations under internal regulations by not consulting other departmental heads and by disclosing secret documents. On 26/11/2003, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment and stated that obtaining information through the abuse of one’s position was not part of freedom of expression (§25 of the judgment).

The European Court noted that reporting of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in the workplace by a civil servant should in certain circumstances enjoy protection (§72) and concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society for the following reasons (violation of Article 10):

- there was no provision either in the legislation or in the internal regulations enabling employees to report wrongdoings;

- the information disclosed was very important for the public interest since it concerned the separation of powers, improper conduct by a high-ranking politician and the government’s attitude towards police brutality;

- the information disclosed was genuine;

- the protection of the public interest in information about undue pressure and wrongdoing within the Prosecutor’s Office was more important than that of the interest in maintaining public confidence in the Prosecutor General’s Office;

- the applicant had acted in good faith because his motive for disclosing the information was to help fight corruption and trading in influence;

- the sanction imposed on the applicant (i.e. dismissal from his employment) was the heaviest sanction possible.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from the dismissal.

• Applicant’s submission: By letter of 4/09/2008 the applicant reported that, following the European Court’s judgment, the applicant requested the Supreme Court of Justice to review its judgment of 26/11/2003 and to reinstate him in his previous position at the press service in the General Prosecutor’s Office. On 28/05/2008, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the revision request. On 29/05/2008 the applicant met the Prosecutor General who allegedly suggested that he resign. On 6/06/2008 the applicant received a copy of the Prosecutor’s General order, dated of 5/06/2008, indicating that the applicant was reinstated in his previous position as from 28/05/2008.

However, the applicant alleges that since 6/06/2008 he has been assigned no task, and has not been given the badge needed to access the premises of the General Prosecutor’s Office. Every morning he has had to wait until the head of security staff lets him in. The applicant has had to share the office with other employees and when they were leaving the office, the applicant was requested to stay in the corridor (sometimes for several hours), in order not to have access to secret information.

On 16/06/2008, the applicant was handed an order of the Prosecutor General, dated of the same day, indicating that with the agreement of the trade union of 6/06/2008, and on the ground of Article 14§8 of the Law on Public Service No 443 of 04/05/1995, the applicant had been dismissed on 10/06/2008. According to this provision, “civil servants of the Parliament, Presidency, State Chancellery, ministries, and other central public authorities, are hired by order of the Director of the public service concerned. The appointment of a new Director for the above-mentioned public services, results in the termination of activity, by resignation, of counsellors, assistants, civil servants of the press service and secretaries.”

The applicant pointed out that although the Prosecutor General has been changed twice since 2003, no staff member was dismissed until 16/06/2008 on the ground provided by Article 14§8 of the Law on public service.

On 28/10/2008 the applicant’s submission were transmitted to the Moldovan authorities.

• Information submitted by the Moldovan authorities: by letter of 15/12/2008, the Moldovan authorities confirmed that the applicant was reinstated on 28/05/2008 and that he has been paid salary for the period  covering his forced absence between 1/07/2007 – 28/05/2008. They further pointed that the applicant was given access to the workplace on the same conditions as the other employees. Finally, the authorities confirmed the applicant’s dismissal on the ground of Article 14§8 of the Law on Public Service.

• The information provided by the Moldovan authorities is being assessed.

General measures: The European Court emphasised the absence of any legal framework concerning the signalling by a civil servant of illegal conduct of wrongdoings in the workplace (§81).

• Information is thus awaited on measures taken or envisaged by the Moldovan authorities with a view to remedying to this legal lacuna.

• Publication and distribution: an excerpt of the judgment of the European Court has been translated and sent for publication in the Official Journal of the Republic of Moldova (Monitorul Oficial).

• Information is now awaited on the translation of the full version of the judgment as well as on its communication to the Prosecution Service, to the Supreme Court of Justice and to the Ministry of Interior, as well as on other measures envisaged by the authorities to prevent new, similar violations.

13936/02          Manole and others, judgment of 17/09/2009, final on 17/12/2009 and of 13/07/2010, final on 13/10/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression due to censorship and political control in 2001-2006 by state authorities of the State Television Company, Teleradio-Moldova (TRM), in which the applicants worked as journalists, editors and producers, and which also resulted in the applicants’ dismissal (violation of Article 10).

The European Court noted in particular that during the relevant period there was a significant bias towards reporting on the activities of the President and Government in TRM’s television news and other programming, with insufficient opportunity for representatives of the opposition parties to gain access to television to express their views. In addition, there was a policy of restricting discussion or mention of certain topics because they were considered to be politically sensitive or to reflect badly in some way on the government.

The Court further noted that in view laws ensuring TRM’s independence from political interference and control, the state authorities were under a duty to ensure a pluralistic audiovisual service. However, during the period taken into consideration by the Court, i.e. from February 2001 to September 2006, when one political party controlled Parliament, Presidency and government, domestic law did not provide a sufficient guarantee of political balance in the composition of TRM's senior management and supervisory body nor any safeguard against interference from the ruling political party in these bodies' decision-making and functioning, despite a number of recommendations by the Council of Europe.

Thus the Court ruled that the state had not discharged its positive obligation under Article 10, as the legislative framework throughout the period in question was flawed in that it did not provide sufficient safeguards against the control of TRM’s senior management, and thus its editorial policy, by the political organ of the government. These flaws were not remedied when Law No. 1320-XV was adopted and amended.

As regards the application of Article 46 of the Convention, the Court held that as a response to its finding of a violation Moldova, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, should at the earliest opportunity take general measures, including legislative reform, to ensure that the legal framework complies with the requirements of Article 10 and takes into account the Council of Europe’s relevant recommendations.

On 13/07/2010 the Court delivered its judgment on the issue of just satisfaction under Article 41.

• To date the authorities have provided no information.

                        - 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

The first case concerns a temporary ban of the Christian Democratic People's Party (CDPP), as a political party represented in Parliament, for having held unauthorised demonstrations in January 2002.

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

On 14/01/ 2002, the Ministry of Justice, having sent an official warning letter four days earlier, imposed a one-month ban on the party’s activities by virtue of Article 29 of the Law on parties and other socio-political organisations. On 24/01/2002 the party challenged this decision but their action was dismissed by a final judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice on 17/05/2002.

Following an inquiry by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe under Article 52 of the Convention, the ban was lifted on 8/02/2002, but the decision of 18/01/2002 was not set aside.

The Roşca, Secăreanu and others case concerns the fining of the applicants – members or supporters of the CDPP – for having participated in the unauthorised demonstrations organised by the CDPP, in breach of Article 174/1 of the Code of Administrative Offences in force at the material time.

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

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

Having regard to the conclusions reached in the Christian Democratic People's Party case, and to the fact that the applicants in the Roşca, Secăreanu and others case were members or supporters of the CDPP, the European Court held that the interference with their freedom of peaceful assembly was not proportionate to the aim pursued and that it did not meet a “pressing social need” (violation of Article 11).

Individual measures: The temporary ban on the CDPP’s activities was lifted on 8/02/2002. The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in the Roşca, Secăreanu and others case.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems to be needed.

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

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities: The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in the Official Journal of the Moldovan Republic (Monitorul Oficial) as well as on the official internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.md).

• The authorities are invited to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations resulting from erroneous interpretation of permissible grounds for banning political parties. The dissemination of the European Court’s judgment among the relevant authorities and domestic courts is expected, possibly together with circulars or explanatory notes stressing the problems identified by the European Court (see §76 of the judgment).

6303/05            Masaev, judgment of 12/05/2009, final on 12/08/2009

The case concerns the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of religion as a result of his fining based on a provision of the Code of Administrative offences, in force at the material time, for practising Muslim rituals in private premises.

The European Court found incompatible with the Convention the above provision and the sanctioning of individual members of an unregistered religious denomination for manifesting their religious beliefs, which amounts to the exclusion by the State of the minority religious beliefs which are not formally registered (violation of Article 9).

This case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of failure by the domestic court to summon him in due time (violation of Article 6§1).

19247/03           Balan, judgment of 29/01/2008, final on 29/04/2008

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s rights to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions on account of the refusal by domestic courts to compensate him for the unauthorised use by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of one of his photographs as a background for the national identity cards (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In the first set of proceedings (November 1998 – December 1999) the Supreme Court of Justice awarded compensation to the applicant for the author’s rights on the photograph taken by him, but rejected the applicant’s request that the Ministry be ordered to sign a contract with him for the future use of the photograph.

In the second set of proceedings (December 1999 – October 2002) concerning the continued unlawful use of the photograph between March 1999 and May 2000, the Supreme Court of Justice, essentially repeating the reasons given in the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 26/03/2002, rejected the applicant’s claims, considering that during the first set of proceedings he had already been compensated and had never asked that this photograph no longer be used.

The European Court noted “the discrepancies in the manner in which the domestic authorities interpreted the Copyright and Related Rights Act (“the 1994 Act”) in the first and in the second proceedings, even though they decided on essentially the same legal situation”. The Court found that the public interest could have been served without violating the applicant’s rights, for example by using another photograph or by signing a contract with the applicant.

Individual measures: Since 01/05/2000, the photograph taken by the applicant is no longer used on the identity cards. The European Court awarded the applicant a lump sum (5 000 euros) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

• Information provided by the applicant’s representative: On 21/07/2008 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a revision request under Article 449 of Code of Civil Procedure.

• Information is awaited on the progress of the re-opening proceedings.

General measures: It appears that the violation of the author’s rights was a consequence of the inconsistency in application of the 1994 Act by the domestic courts.

• Information provided by the Moldovan authorities (letter of 25/09/2008): The Ministry of Justice informed the Superior Council of Magistrates of the need to strengthen the responsibility of judges while examining similar cases. The authorities also indicated that on 9/11/1998 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice adopted a decision on domestic courts’ practice in applying certain legal provisions concerning copyright. Finally, the authorities mentioned the organisation by the National Institute of Justice of regular training seminars for judges and prosecutors.

• Assessment: The decision of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice mentioned above had apparently already been taken when the domestic courts examined the case but it did not impede their delivering decisions which were challenged by the European Court.

• Information is therefore awaited on other measures to ensure that the domestic courts’ practice is in compliance with the Convention requirements. As far as the training seminars organised by the National Institute of Justice are concerned, more details on their content and duration would be useful.

According to the information provided by the Moldovan delegation, the excerpt of the judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Moldova. The full text of the judgment has been sent for publication on the official web-site of the Ministry of Justice (http://justice.md/md/cedo/).

• Information is thus awaited on the publication and dissemination to all courts of the full version of the European Court’s judgment.

40117/02           Cazacu, judgment of 23/10/2007, final on 23/01/2008

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the refusal of the domestic courts to award him redundancy payments as provided in Articles 45 and 80 of the Labour Code.

The European Court noted that the applicant fulfilled the legal conditions governing entitlement to the payment, the only reason for dismissing his claim being the failure of his employer to provide for redundancy payments even though such provision was required by law of all employers (§§44 and 46). It therefore found the domestic courts’ refusal illegal (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

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

• Assessment: no further measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged by the authorities to prevent new, similar violations.

15084/03           Bimer S.A., judgment of 10/07/2007, final on 10/10/2007

The case concerns the violation of the applicant right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions by a Customs order, based on an amendment to the Customs Code, preventing the company from continuing to operate its duty-free business and withdrawing its existing licence to carry on business at a designated location. The Court of Appeal of Moldova considered that this decision violated section 43 of the Law on Foreign Investments since the applicant company was subject to this law, which established a special regime for duty-free trading. However this decision was subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the decision at issue, being limited to a precise location, did not deprive the applicant of the possibility of carrying out other activities at other places and thus did not interfere in its right to respect of its possessions.

The European Court found on the contrary that the decision was an interference in that right and there was nothing to authorise the reversal of the Appeal Court’s judgment (violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company as a consequence of the violation (520 000 euros).

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged bring the Customs Department’s regulations concerning duty-free trading into line with Section 43 of the Law on Foreign Investments and the requirements of the Convention. Information is also awaited on publication and dissemination of the judgment, in particular to the Customs authorities.

21151/04           Megadat.com SRL, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008

This case concerns the violation of the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions on account of arbitrary and disproportionate invalidation of its telecommunications licences (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

At the time of the events (2002-2003), the applicant company was the largest internet provider in Moldova and operated on the basis of two licences issued by National Regulatory Agency for Telecommunications and Informatics (ANRTI). In October 2003 ANRTI invalidated the telecommunications licences of the applicant company, on the ground that it had failed to notify it in due time of the change of address of its headquarters. The applicant company challenged the ANRTI’s decision consecutively before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing that the invalidation of licences was disproportionate, discriminatory, and adopted in breach of ANRTI’s procedure. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant company’s appeals, disregarding its submissions, including those regarding the discriminatory treatment.

The European Court noted that in its dealings with the applicant company ANRTI did not comply with the principles of consistency incumbent on public authorities. The Court also noted that the domestic courts failed to respect the procedural safeguards available to the applicant company to defend its interests and regretted that the Supreme Court of Justice had disregarded the applicant company’s complaints about discrimination. In the light of the above, the Court concluded that the authorities had not followed any genuine and consistent policy considerations and failed to preserve a fair balance between the sanction applied to the applicant company and the general interests at stake.

Individual measures: The European Court reserved the question of just satisfaction.

General measures: The violations in this case seem to arise from the inconsistent and the discriminatory conduct of ANRTI with regard to the applicant company, as well as from the arbitrariness of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice which failed to respect the procedural safeguards granted to the applicant by Articles 26, 56, 206, 208 and 211 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to ensure the uniform application of the ANRTI regulations to all companies, so that the principles of consistency and proportionality incumbent on public authorities are respected when decisions of a general interest are taken.

• Information is also awaited on measures taken or envisaged to ensure that all the domestic courts respect without discrimination the procedural safeguards granted to parties to litigation, in particular on the publication of the full version of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to all domestic courts, as well as on the possibility of organising an awareness-raising seminar for the judges of the Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court of Justice.

- 6 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

17328/04           Deservire S.R.L., judgment of 06/10/2009, final on 06/01/2010

35967/03           Gusovschi, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 31/03/2008

19246/03           Matei and Tutunaru, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 27/01/2010

27516/04           Panzari, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 01/03/2010

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6). Length of civil proceedings in these cases was caused, inter alia, by lack of diligence required from the courts, re-opening of case after the quashing of final judgments and numerous re-hearings.

In the Deservire S.R.L., Matei and Tutunaru cases the Court noted in particular that the reopening after a final judgment through an extraordinary procedure is in itself contrary to Article 6. In the Cravcenco, Gusovschi, Deservire S.R.L. and Panzari cases the Court found that the repeated re-hearing of cases as a result of errors committed by lower courts “discloses serious deficiency in the judicial system”.

Individual measures: In the Cravcenco and Gusovschi cases the proceedings are closed and the European Court awarded just-satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Information is awaited on individual measures in the Boboc, Deservire S.R.L., Matei and Tutunaru and Panzari cases.

General Measures:

• An action plan/action report is awaited.

Publication and dissemination: The European court’s judgment in the Cravcenco case has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.md), sent for publication in the Official Journal and distributed to the domestic courts.

• Information is awaited on the publication and dissemination of the other judgments in this group.

- 1 case against Monaco / 1 affaire contre Monaco

43376/06           Prencipe, arrêt du 16/07/2009, définitif le 16/10/2009

Cette affaire concerne la durée excessive de la détention provisoire subie par la requérante : du 7/01/2004 au 13/12/2007 (4 ans environ dont 2 ans relevant de la compétence de la Cour européenne).

La Cour européenne a constaté que la longueur de la privation de liberté subie par la requérante ne reposait pas sur des motifs sinon pertinents du moins suffisants dans les circonstances de l’espèce, la pertinence initiale des motifs retenus pour maintenir l’intéressée en détention ne résistant pas à l’épreuve du temps (violation de l’article 5§3).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La requérante a été libérée le 13/12/2007. La Cour européenne lui a accordé une satisfaction équitable au titre de dommage moral.

• Evaluation : Aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités (15/12/2009) : l’article 194 du code de procédure pénale modifié par la loi n° 343 du 26/12/2007, restreint la durée des détentions avant jugement.

• Des informations sont attendues de la part des autorités sur leur évaluation de l’impact de cette mesure sur la violation constatée (bilan d’action) et sur la nécessité de mesures complémentaires (plan d’action si nécessaire).

- 4 cases against the Netherlands / 4 affaires 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 case 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 (10/09/2009 and 10/08/2010): 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 had 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.

On 5/10/2009, following a friendly settlement reached by the applicants and the Norwegian Ministry of Culture, the applicants withdrew their request for reopening of the case. On 12/10/2009, the Norwegian Supreme Court accepted the withdrawal of the request of reopening.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

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 (10/09/2009): 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 (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.”

• An action report was provided by the authorities on 10/08/2010. It is under assessment by the Secretariat.

- 589 cases against Poland / 589 affaires contre la Pologne

11562/05           Byrzykowski, judgment of 27/06/2006, final on 27/09/2006

This case concerns the violation of the right to life due to the failure to carry out an effective investigation into the death of the applicant's wife and serious damage to his son's health (violation of Article 2).

In July 1999 the applicant's wife was about to give birth to their child and was admitted to the Wrocław Medical Academy hospital. The physicians decided to perform a caesarean section and gave her an epidural, as a result of which she went into a coma. All resuscitation efforts failed and she died on 31/07/1999. Their son, born by caesarean section, suffers from serious health problems, mostly of neurological character, and requires permanent medical attention.

At the applicant's request, a police inquiry was opened and led to the opening on 29/12/1999 of a criminal investigation into the suspected offence of manslaughter. Due to the lengthy process of taking evidence, and in particular forensic reports, these proceedings were stayed once, three times discontinued and three times resumed. They were still pending when the European Court issued the judgment in the case.

In August 1999 the applicant also requested that disciplinary proceedings be brought. Those proceedings were stayed, resumed and then stayed again on 25/04/2005 and are still pending.

Moreover, in July 2002 the applicant also lodged a compensation claim against the hospital before a civil court. On 07/04/2003 those proceedings were stayed, pending the outcome of the two other sets.

The European Court noted that three sets of proceedings had been and were still pending for periods ranging from four to almost seven years and that the applicant had used all the remedies available to him concerning  the alleged medical malpractice. It observed that after almost seven years, there had been no final decision in any of them.

Moreover, it observed that the authorities repeatedly referred to the other sets of pending proceedings as a justification for staying them or the refusals to resume them. However, having regard to the overall length of the period which had elapsed since the death of the applicant's wife and also to the fact that the procedures instituted seemed rather to have hindered the overall progress in the proceedings, the Court concluded that the procedures applied in order to elucidate the allegations of medical malpractice did not resulted in an effective examination into the cause of the death of the applicant's wife

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

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: Following the police investigation of the alleged manslaughter of the applicant's wife the Wrocław District Prosecutor found on 18/05/2006 that there was insufficient evidence. This finding, which was based on expert medical opinions supplied by the Universities of Krakow, Katowice, Poznań and Bialystock, became final on 7/06/2006.

On 11/10/2007 the Regional Medical Tribunal decided to discontinue disciplinary proceedings against one of the physicians because they were time-barred.

The civil proceedings for compensation, pending before the Wrocław Regional court, have been resumed and are subject to administrative supervision. A last hearing took place on 24/06/2009.

• Information is awaited on whether the Regional Medical Tribunal’s decision of 11/10/2007 is final, as well as on the progress of the civil proceedings.

General measures: The European Court found no indication of any failure on the part of the state in its obligation to provide a procedure to determine the criminal, disciplinary or civil responsibility of persons who might be held liable (§ 106 of the judgment). The finding of a violation in this case resulted from the Court's assessment of how this procedure had worked in the concrete circumstances.

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: The Polish authorities have undertaken reforms with a view to:

            1) Making judicial experts more efficient: On 12/09/2008 the Council of Ministers adopted a Bill on experts in judicial proceedings. It aims at providing a comprehensive legislative framework concerning experts’ status, their appointment, dismissal and supervision as well as on expert institutions allowed to deliver opinions. The Bill has been submitted to the Institute of Justice for its opinion with regard to civil proceedings.

            2) Introducing a remedy in case of excessive length of investigations:

According to the March 2007 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the prosecutor has refused to conduct an investigation and the superior prosecutor has upheld this decision, the appeal against the decision on the refusal to conduct investigation shall be transmitted to the court (Article 306§2 as amended and Article 465§2).

Moreover, on 20/02/2009 the Law of 17/06/2004 on complaints against infringement of parties’ right to have a case heard in preparatory proceedings without undue delay was adopted and entered into force on 01/05/2009. It provides the possibility to lodge complaint against excessive length of preparatory proceedings due to an action or inactivity of a prosecutor conducting or supervising such proceedings (see also the Kudła group of cases, Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)28, 30210/96, 1072nd meeting, December 2009). The significant role of the amendment to empower a court, when admitting a complaint, to recommend ex-officio concrete actions within a specific time-limit. This supervisory measure should effectively accelerate proceedings.

            3) Changing the disciplinary procedure before the Medical Association: An amendment to the 1989 Act on the Medical Association has been drafted. Its main effect would be to broaden injured parties' rights in disciplinary proceedings. At present, their status is limited to that of a witness. It is also proposed to make hearings before the professional body public, to introduce the possibility of appealing its decisions before criminal courts, to increase the range of disciplinary sanctions available and to fix time-limits for each phase of disciplinary proceedings.

• Information provided by the Polish authorities (letter of 06/07/2009):  On 16/06/2009 the government adopted the amendment to the 1989 Act on the Medical Association. The amendment will be laid before Parliament with a view to its enactment.

• Information is awaited on the development of the reform proposals, mentioned under 1 and 3 above.

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.

15562/02           Lewandowski and Lewandowska, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

19616/04           Pieniak, judgment of 24/02/2009, final on 24/05/2009

These cases concern inhuman and degrading treatment suffered by the applicants when arrested by the police (substantive violations of Article 3) and the absence of any effective investigation into the circumstances of these incidents (procedural violations of Article 3).

In the first case, the applicants’ son, who committed suicide in 2001, sustained a number of relatively serious injuries in the course of his arrest in August 2000 in Legionowo. The European Court found that the government had not provided convincing or credible arguments which would provide a basis to explain or justify the degree of force used during the arrest, in particular because the conclusions of the district prosecutor, who investigated the circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants’ son by police officers, were inconsistent with the medical and forensic reports drawn up in this case. Moreover, the European Court noted that the prosecutor’s investigation was superficial, lacked objectivity and ended with decisions which contained conclusions not supported by a careful analysis of facts.

In the second case, the applicant alleged that he had beaten by the police during his arrest at the Łuków Police Station in September 2001. The European Court considered that the government failed to provide a plausible explanation of how the applicant’s injuries, which became visible three days after his admission to the Siedlce detention centre, were sustained. It also found that the prosecutor’s investigation into the applicant’s allegations, instituted only in February 2003, reopened once and discontinued in March 2007, was not sufficiently thorough and effective; there had been a series of delays, the total duration of which cannot be reasonably justified.

                        - 2 cases concerning poor detention condition[48]

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

                        - 4 cases concerning the lack of appropriate medical care in detention

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

48/03                Wierzbicki Andrzej, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

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. 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: The Polish authorities provided Action Report and Action Plan on 26/02/2010.

1) Violation of Article 3:

A. Action Report (measures already taken):

1) Legislative reforms: 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. 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.

2) Other measures: The average number of medical and diagnostic tests, procedures and consultations in penitentiary facilities has been increased; educational and medical programmes are being undertaken to reduce smoking (in 2009 83 834 prisoners were covered by the training programme against smoking) and alcohol problems (currently there are wards for alcohol addicted detainees in 28 penitentiary units, four of which have been established recently; with room for 938 detainee patients), drug addiction, prevention of HIV infection and care of people with AIDS (in 2009 178 persons were given anti-retroviral therapy).

B. Action plan provided (measures envisaged or under way):

1) Legislative measures: (i) 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; (ii) by 31/10/2010 it is expected to adopt principles of co-operation between penitentiary healthcare units.    

2) Other measures: 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. Reform of penitentiary healthcare aims to improve quality and provide the same standards of medical treatment for all prisoners. Modernisation of prison hospitals is envisaged, and in 2010-2013 construction of a central penitentiary hospital is to be accomplished. The Central Prison Service Board intends to enforce more strictly the provisions concerning the obligation to co-operate with civil health-care establishments in providing medical services for persons deprived of liberty.

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: The information provided by the authorities is welcome. Further information would be helpful on the scope and functioning of the law on Electronic Supervision System and its implementation and detail of the provisions of the draft amendment to the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences;

• These 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, Section 4.2) 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.

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 (63131/00, 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.

5410/03            Tysiąc, judgment of 20/03/2007, final on 24/09/2007

This case concerns the authorities’ failure to comply with their positive obligation with regard to the respect for the applicant’s right to her private life, due to the absence of a legal framework to guarantee her right to therapeutic abortion (violation of Article 8).

According to the applicable Polish law (1993 Family Planning Act) abortion is generally prohibited, unless inter alia pregnancy poses a threat to the woman’s life or health, attested by at least one medical certificate of a specialist in the area concerning the illness of the woman concerned. A doctor who terminates a pregnancy in breach of the law is guilty of a criminal offence.

The applicant, who is severely myopic, amounting to disability of medium severity, became pregnant in February 2000. Concerned about the possible impact of the delivery on her health, and especially her eyesight, she consulted four doctors (three ophthalmologists, one general practitioner). Although the ophthalmologists concluded that the pregnancy and the delivery constituted a risk to her eyesight, only the GP issued a medical certificate with a view to a therapeutic abortion. The applicant contacted a gynaecological clinic, but the gynaecologist found no grounds for therapeutic abortion. A few months after the birth of her third child, the applicant’s eyesight deteriorated and she was reclassified as significantly disabled. She has tried in vain to lay criminal complaints against the gynaecologist on the grounds that he had denied her right to a therapeutic abortion.

The European Court noted that the right to respect for private life implies that in case of therapeutic abortion the State must secure the physical integrity of mothers-to-be, striking a fair balance between the interest of the individual and the community. In circumstances such as those in this case, there should be a procedure before an independent body competent to review the reasons for the measures and the relevant evidence. This procedure should guarantee a pregnant woman at least the possibility to be heard in person and to have her views considered. The competent body should issue written grounds for its decision. The procedure should also ensure that such decisions are timely so as to limit or prevent damage to a woman’s health which might be occasioned by a late abortion (§§ 117-118 of the judgment).

The European Court concluded that the Polish legal framework, as applied in this case denied the applicant the possibility of expressing her disagreement with the doctors and made it impossible to determine where the conditions for therapeutic abortion had been met. In particular the provisions of the Minister of Health’s Order of 22/01/1997 provided no particular procedural framework to address and resolve disagreement as to the advisability of therapeutic abortion, either between the pregnant woman and her doctors, or between the doctors themselves. Furthermore the 1996 Medical Profession Act, which allows a doctor to obtain a second opinion from a colleague in the event of therapeutic doubts or at the patient’s request, was only addressed to members of the medical profession and gives patients no procedural guarantee to obtain such an opinion or to contest it in the event of disagreement.

Moreover, the European Court found that such retrospective legal measures as those based on civil law on tort or the criminal proceedings instituted against one of the doctors could not of themselves provide appropriate protection for the physical integrity of the applicant.

Individual measures: The European Court rejected the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction for pecuniary damage, considering that it could not speculate as to the correctness of the doctors’ conclusions concerning the future deterioration of her eyesight. It awarded her just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage (25 000 euros).

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

General measures:

Measures taken:

            1) Publication: The judgment of the European Court was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.ms.gov.pl.

            2) Legislative measures: On 06/11/2008 the Parliament voted the Law on the Protection of Individual and Collective Rights of Patients and the Patient Rights’ Ombudsman. Most of its provisions entered into force on 24/04/2009. The law defines inter alia the patients’ rights and procedures concerning their access to healthcare and shall also apply to the conduct of lawful abortion.

According to Section 31§1 of this law, a patient or his/her legal representative may lodge an appeal (sprzeciw) against a physician’s opinion (opinia) or decision (orzeczenie), if the latter has an influence on his/her rights and/or obligations stemming from the provisions of law. The appeal should be lodged through the Patient Rights’ Ombudsman (Rzecznik Praw Pacjenta) to the Commission of Physicians (Komisja Lekarska), acting by the latter, within 30 days following the day on which the opinion or decision of the physician assessing his/her state of health was delivered.

The appeal shall be examined by the Commission of Physicians without delay, not later than after 30 days since it was lodged. The Commission of Physicians delivers a decision (orzeczenie) on the basis of the medical documentation and, if need be, having heard the patient (Section 31§5), by an absolute majority of votes in the presence of all its members (Section 31§6). It is composed of three physicians, of which two must have the same specialisation as the one who delivered the contested opinion or decision (Section 32§1). They are appointed by the Patient Rights’ Ombudsman, whose activity is supervised by the Prime Minister.

The decisions of the Commission of Physicians are final and the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure shall not apply in the proceedings before it (Section 31§§7 and 8).

Two sets of comments, by the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning, have been brought to the attention of the Committee of Ministers, together with observations of the delegation in May 2008. They concern the very first version of the draft law, and in particular the need to fix short time-limits in proceedings concerning an appeal against doctor’s refusal to carry out an abortion. These comments have been made in conformity with Rule No. 9 (Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements). In reply to the comments, the Polish authorities decided to establish a special Group for the Execution for the Tysiąc judgment. The first session of this group was held in December 2009. The participants, representatives of the Minister of Health, Minister of Justice, the Ombudsman, Minister of Foreign Affairs, discussed the NGO’s comments while working on a “Draft ordinance of the Minister of Health concerning the functioning of the Commission of Physicians”. Work on the draft has been finalised and the project sent to the Government Legislation Centre.

• Assessment: the Secretariat welcomes the new Law on the Protection of Individual and Collective Rights of Patients and the Patient Rights’ Ombudsman. However, in the light of the European Court’s findings included in §§ 117-118 of the judgment, some questions still arise concerning the application of this law in cases concerning therapeutic abortion.

• Thus clarifications are needed as to whether:

-           a woman seeking therapeutic abortion will be heard in person and have her views considered before the Commission of Physicians;

-           the decisions of the Commission of Physicians will contain written grounds;

-           these decisions will be delivered in a timely manner so as to limit or prevent damage to a woman’s health which might be occasioned by a late abortion; in this context, it should be noted that the new law provides a time-limit of 30 days after the appeal was lodged for the Commission of Physicians to examine this appeal. However, such decisions should be delivered “without delay” (Section 31§5). The Secretariat points out that in cases of therapeutic abortion, decisions should be delivered “without delay”, to comply with the requirement of timeliness stemming from the European Court’s judgment.

• Information is awaited on the developments of the legal reform mentioned above, as well as on any other possible measures taken or envisaged to avoid similar violations in the future, and in particular on those meant to ensure the application of the new Law on the Protection of Individual and Collective Rights of Patients in accordance with the requirements stemming from the European Court’s judgment.

55339/00          Różański, judgment of 18/05/2006, final on 18/08/2006[49]

34568/08           Dąbrowska, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to respect for family life due to the failure of Polish authorities to take immediate and effective steps to enforce decisions granting her custodial rights in respect of her son (violation of the Article 8).

The applicant was granted sole custody of her son (then aged 8) by an interim order of 24/05/2006, issued by the Białystok District Court during divorce proceeding. Her rights were confirmed by the final divorce judgment of 10/09/2007, upheld by the Białystok Court of Appeal on 28/02/2008. Despite the applicant’s numerous complaints, these decisions were not respected by the father, nor duly enforced by the appointed guardians. Although the Białystok Regional Court acknowledged on several occasions that the appointed guardians had acted slowly, ineffectively or with a lack of diligence, no action had been taken to overcome these shortcomings. On 2/04/2009, the authorities decided to legalise the existing status quo and granted the applicant’s husband temporary custody of the son.

The European Court found that the delay and the ineffective enforcement of a binding domestic decision were caused to a large extent by the authorities' improper handling of the case.

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, 27916/95, Section 4.2), 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. 

53025/99           Frankowicz, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression due to his conviction in disciplinary proceedings, a decision subsequently upheld by the Supreme Medical Court in May 1998 (violation of Article 10).

The applicant, a gynaecologist, was found guilty of unethical conduct in breach of the principle of professional solidarity, in violation of the Code of Ethics, and reprimanded for having prepared a critical opinion on hepatological and dermatological treatment prescribed by another doctor for one of his patients.

The European Court found that this sanction, although provided by law and pursuing a legitimate aim, i.e., the protection of the rights and reputation of others, was not “necessary in a democratic society”. It stressed that the applicant’s opinion concerned a critical assessment from a medical point of view of treatment received by his patient from another doctor, which was an issue of public interest and that the disciplinary courts’ approach risked discouraging medical practitioners from providing their patients with an objective view of their state of health and treatment received.

1543/06            Bączkowski and others, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 24/09/2007

This case concerns the violation of the right to peaceful assembly of the applicants, the Foundation for Equality and five of its members (violation of Article 11). In the context of their “Equality Days” campaign, the applicants wished to organise a march and rallies in Warsaw to draw public attention to discrimination against minorities, women and the disabled. On 12/05/2005 and 03/06/2005 they applied for permission to organise respectively the march and the rallies. On 20/05/2005, in an interview in a national newspaper, the Mayor of Warsaw expressed strong personal opinions about freedom of assembly and “propaganda about homosexuality” and stated that he would refuse permission to hold the demonstrations. Permission was denied on 03/06/2005 and 09/06/2005. Despite the refusal, the march did take place on 11/06/2005. On 17/06/2005 and 22/08/2005 the appellate authorities quashed the decisions of 03/06/2005 and 09/06/2005 on the ground that they had been poorly justified and in breach of the applicable laws.

The European Court found that the refusal to authorise the march and the rallies constituted an interference with the applicants' rights as guaranteed under Article 11, which was not “prescribed by law”, in particular given the decisions of 03/06/2005 and 09/06/2005 quashing the first-instance authorities' decisions.

It also found that the remedies available, all post hoc, did not provide adequate redress to the applicants (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 11).

Moreover, the European Court noted that the refusal of the march had been based on the applicants' failure to submit a “traffic organisation plan”, whereas other organisers had not been subject to a similar requirement. As regards the rallies, they had been refused due in particular to the risk of violent clashes between demonstrators. It was not however disputed that the authorities had given permission to other groups to hold counter-demonstrations on that same day. The Court observed that the decisions had been given by the municipal authorities acting on the Mayor's behalf and after he had already made known to the public his opinion on the matter in the interview of 20/05/2005. Thus the Mayor's opinions affected the decision-making process and, as a result, infringed the applicant's right to freedom of assembly in a discriminatory manner (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11).

Individual measures: The march and the rallies for which permission had been given duly took place on 11/06/2005. Before the European Court the applicants claimed no compensation for damage.

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

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 11: According to Section 8 of the 1990 Assemblies Act, a municipality may refuse permission for the holding of a demonstration if its purpose is in breach of the Act itself or of provisions of the Criminal Code, or if the demonstration might entail a danger to life or limb, or a major danger to property.

On 18/01/2006 the Constitutional Court gave a judgment in which it found that the provisions of the Road Traffic Act as applied in the applicants' case had been incompatible with constitutional guarantees of freedom of assembly.

• Clarification is awaited as to the currently applicable provisions of the Assemblies Act and the Road Traffic concerning the conditions in which the organisation of marches and rallies may be refused.

2) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 11: The European Court noted that the organisers had given sufficient forewarning of their plans to the authorities (12/05/2005 for the march and 03/06/2005 for the rallies): under Section 7 of the Assemblies Act a request to hold a demonstration must be submitted to the municipality no earlier than 30 days and no later than three days before the date of the event. A similar law did not exist, however, whereby the authorities had been obliged by a legally binding time-frame to give their final decision before the demonstrations were to take place.

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: The Ministry of Interior and Administration has prepared an amendment to the Assemblies Act to introduce an effective remedy against local authorities’ refusal to hold demonstrations before the assembly is held. The draft has passed through the stage of interdepartmental consultations and was placed on 18/12/2009 on the web site of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration (http://bip.mswia.gov.pl/portal/bip/12/). Non-governmental organisations and the Joint Commission of the Government and Local Authorities have been asked to comment on the draft in a process of social consultations.

Under terms of the draft, the final decision regarding a possible ban on the assembly shall be delivered to the organisers at least 24 hours before the planned date of the event. The provisions of the draft law also concern the question of so-called “spontaneous meetings” (zgromadzenie spontaniczne).

• Information is awaited on the progress of this legislative work.

3) Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11: This violation was of an isolated nature and was due to the personal opinions of the Mayor of Warsaw.

• Measures taken: the judgment of the European Court has been published on the public website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl) and sent out to the competent local authorities through the Association of Polish Local Authorities (Związek Powiatów Polskich). It has also been sent to the National School for the Judiciary and Prosecution Service (Krajowa Szkoła Sądownictwa i Prokuratury) and will be included in the training programme for future judges and prosecutors).

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.

29761/03           Białas Janusz, judgment of 28/07/2009, final on 28/10/2009

The case concerns a violation of the right of access to a court. The applicant's repeated appeals for payment of default interest for the late payment of a benefit to which he was entitled as a prison officer were dismissed. No court was prepared to accept competence to judge the matter, the opinions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court diverging as to which hierarchy of courts was competent (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court held that there was no administrative remedy available to the applicant and that at the material time the Supreme Court categorically excluded any possibility of bringing such disputes before the civil courts.

- 4 cases concerning the violation of the right of access to a court due to lack of judicial review of the decisions of the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation[50]

22860/02           Woś, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006

31438/06           Kadłuczka, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010

29334/06           Kostka, judgment of 16/02/2010, final on 16/05/2010

36137/04           Krosta, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010

- 7 cases concerning the lack of access to a court to challenge refusals to grant legal aid[51]

12825/02          Tabor, judgment of 27/06/2006, final on 27/09/2006

15670/02           Biziuk, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

64916/01           Bobrowski, judgment of 17/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008

13526/07           Orzechowski Mirosłav, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

18176/05           Wieczorek, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010

76396/01           Zagawa, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

14464/03           Zaniewski, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

                       - 6 cases concerning the unfairness of lustration proceedings[52]

38184/03           Matyjek, judgment of 24/04/2007, final on 24/09/2007

68761/01           Bobek, judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 10/12/2007

34030/07           Jałowiecki, judgment of 17/02/2009, final on 17/05/2009

37469/05           Luboch, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

38886/05           Rasmussen, judgment of 28/04/2009, final on 28/07/2009

23119/05           Wrona, judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

52479/99           Rybacki, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

This case concerns the excessive length of detention of the applicant on remand between 1996 and 1999, as the grounds for prolonging detention where neither “relevant” nor “sufficient” (violation of Article 5§3).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, since for over six months of his detention on remand, between May 1996 and November 1996, on the basis of the prosecutor’s decisions he could not communicate with his lawyer out of the earshot of the prosecutor or a person appointed by him (violation of Article 6§3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6§1). The European Court noted that there were no sufficient grounds for imposing this restriction, there being no indication of a risk of collusion arising out of the lawyer’s contacts with the applicant; neither the professional ethics of the lawyer nor the lawfulness of his conduct were called into question. The fact that throughout the period of the restrictions the prosecution authorities gathered very voluminous evidence and were actively preparing the bill of indictment taken together with the considerable length of that period can only strengthen the conclusion that the absence of unhindered contacts with the lawyer negatively affected the effective exercise of the applicant’s defence rights.

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.

- 2 cases concerning the right to the presumption of innocence (grounds used by the courts to motivate decisions extending the applicants' detention on remand)

4317/04            Kaźmierczack, judgment of 10/03/2009, final on 10/06/2009

5422/04            Wojciechowski, judgment of 09/12/2008, final on 05/06/2009

These cases concern a breach of the applicants’ right to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty according to law, due to the grounds used by the courts to motivate decisions extending the applicants’ detention on remand. In the decisions delivered respectively on 3/11/2003 and 03/09/2002, before the applicants were convicted, the Wroclaw Regional Court and Lublin Regional Court stated that they had committed offences with which they had been charged. The European Court found that there could be no justification for a court’s making such a premature expression (violation of Article 6§2).

The events took place subsequent to the European Court's judgment in the Garycki case (14348/02, Trzaska and Kauczor group, 1092nd meeting, September 2010) and these new cases would seem to indicate that the problem is still present in judicial practice.

The case of Wojciechowski also concerns the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand between 2001 and 2004 (violation of Article 5§3).

                  - 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.

                        - 152 cases of length of detention on remand

                        Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)75

                        (see Appendix for the list of cases in the Trzaska and Kauczor group)

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

The Bagiński, D.P. and G.K. cases also concern the prolonged detention on remand of the applicants, without a legal basis, from 01/01/1997 to 24/01/1997 due to the fact that the Polish authorities' request to extend their detention had been filed after the expiry of the time-limit fixed in interim domestic provisions of 1995 (violations of Article 5§1).

In the case of Łatasiewicz, the European Court found that the applicant's detention was irregular in that it was not based on a judicial decision (violation of Article 5§1).

The Bagiński case also concerns the failure to bring the applicant promptly before a judge, in that he was initially placed in detention on the basis of a decision by the prosecutor (violation of Article 5§3).

In the Bagiński, G.K., Trzaska, Wedler, Wesołowski and Zywicki cases, the European Court found that the proceedings to review the lawfulness of the applicants' detention on remand were not adversarial (violations of Article 5§4). Moreover, the Trzaska, Jabłoński and Iłowiecki cases concern the domestic courts' failure to examine promptly the applicants' requests for release between 1993 and 1996 (violations of Article 5§4).

The cases of Jabłoński, Szeloch, Iłowiecki, Kauczor, Kreps and Olstowski also concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1).

The Cabała, Cegłowski, Dzyruk, G.K., Gąsiorowski and Góral cases also concern the violation of the applicants' right to correspond with the organs of the Convention (violations of Article 8).

Finally, in the Bagiński case, the European Court found a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his family life (violation of Article 8), since the restrictions placed on visits by his mother between December 1995 and May 1996 exceeded what was necessary in a democratic society to defend public order and prevent the commission of offences.

Individual measures:

            1) Violations of Article 5§3: In most of the cases the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: In the Jarzyński, Jaworski, Kankowski, Kozlowski and Krawczak cases the applicants were released from detention.

• Information is awaited concerning the applicants' situation in the Choumakov, Konrad and Pakos cases.

            2) Violations of Article 6§1:

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: In the Olstowski and Iłowiecki cases, the proceedings were closed respectively on 03/02/2004 and 14/09/2004.

• Assessment: no further measure appears to be necessary.

General measures:

1) Violations of Article 5§3:

a) Legislative measures and Constitutional Court judgments: The grounds for placement and maintaining in detention on remand were modified with the entry into force on 01/09/1998 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. Detention on remand may be ordered if there is a strong probability that the accused has committed an offence and, cumulatively, if there is a risk of his or her absconding, obstructing the proceedings or, in certain cases, re-offending. According to Article 258§2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused may be detained on remand if he or she risks a long term of imprisonment (if the charges relate to offences punishable by at least 8 years of imprisonment or if a court of first instance sentenced the accused to a minimum of 3 years of imprisonment). The maximum period of detention on remand before the case is referred to a court is limited to 3 months; in exceptional cases, to 12 months. Before a judgment is given, the maximum duration of detention on remand is limited to two years unless the appeal court extends it beyond that limit for any of the reasons set out in Article 263§4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In its judgment of 24/07/2006 (reference No. SK 58/03) the Constitutional Court found that Article 263§4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was in contradiction with the Polish Constitution in that it permitted the extension of remand beyond the two-year limit, in the context of investigation, in the case of “insurmountable obstacles”. The article was consequently amended on 12/01/2007: it is no longer possible to prolong the detention beyond two years for such reasons. This only applies to detention on remand ordered prior to the completion of the preliminary investigation.

• Developments following the interim resolution:

On 10/06/2008 the Constitutional Court delivered another judgment concerning detention on remand (reference No. SK 17/07). In this case, it found that the courts' practice of not taking into account the periods during which a suspect/accused remains in prison following a final conviction in different proceedings while counting the two-year limit for the detention on remand, was unconstitutional. Consequently, courts will have to change their practice.

On 30/04/2009 the government indicated that the Code of Criminal Procedure had been amended. The amendment, in force as of 22/01/2009, implies among other things a change in Article 263§4a, removing “insurmountable obstacles” as a ground for the extension of detention on remand.

Moreover, two other grounds for extending detention on remand were removed from Article 263§4: prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused and prolonged preparation of an expert opinion. Consequently, the extension of detention on remand will be possible only on grounds precisely mentioned in this provision: suspension of criminal proceedings, actions aiming at establishing or confirming the identity of the accused, conduct of evidentiary action in a particularly intricate case or abroad, or intentional protraction of proceedings by the accused.

A further draft amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending before the Ministry of Justice. It aims at imposing an obligation on prosecutors to provide detailed grounds on which requests for extension or imposition of detention on remand are based.

Finally, the authorities have created a working group to improve the monitoring of trends concerning the length of the detention on remand.

            b) Dissemination of the European Court's judgments and training: On 04/06/2004 the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to all the presidents of courts of appeal together with an analysis of the European Court's case-law concerning the requirements relating to the reasons for placing and keeping of a person in detention pending trial. It was underlined in particular that the reason evoked in paragraph 2 of Article 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot justify keeping someone in detention for a long period of time.

Moreover, the Ministry of Justice has sent out circulars, drawing the attention of courts and public prosecutors to the reasoning required for decisions prolonging detention on remand.

• Developments following the interim resolution: On 22/02/2008 the Ministry of Justice wrote to presidents of appeal courts asking the presidents of criminal sections to draw special attention to the drafting of decisions on the imposition or extension of detention on remand and to consider in every case the use of other preventive measures. A copy of the Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)75 was attached to this letter.

The issue of the imposition and extension of detention on remand in accordance with the Convention is now included in the programme of courses for judges. A conference on this topic for appeal court judges took place in March 2008 in Cracow. Further conferences of this kind have been scheduled for 2009.

            c) Courts' practice: In March 2006 the Polish authorities provided information on the practice of criminal courts concerning the imposition and extension of detention on remand. Out of the 11 appeal courts in the country six have made express reference in certain of their decisions to the case-law of the European Court and also in some cases to the circular sent out by the Ministry of Justice. In most of these cases the courts decided to bring an end to the detention on remand and replace it by some alternative measure of constraint, such as the obligation to report to the police or prohibition on leaving the country. In two other appeal courts, similar decisions have been handed down in three cases, but without reference to the case-law of the European Court.

• Developments following the interim resolution: Copies of 21 recent court decisions from four appeal courts' jurisdictions showing “good practice” in the use of preventive measures have been provided. In these decisions, courts referred to the Convention and the European Court's case-law while deciding on the use of such measures, including detention on remand. In a few cases detention on remand, ordered at the earliest stage of criminal proceedings, was replaced by other preventive measures.

            d) Statistics: The Polish authorities have also provided statistics on the average duration of detention on remand (see Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)75).

• Developments following the Interim Resolution: Because of the inconsistency of data derived from different sources, a special group has been created in the Ministry of Justice to draw up an efficient mechanism for evaluating trends concerning length of detention on remand and new forms for the statistical data concerning the imposition and extension of detention on remand.

According to the data provided by the Ministry of Justice, in the year 2007 public prosecutors all over Poland lodged with the district courts 36,408 motions to remand in custody, i.e. 4,8% fewer than in 2006 (38,272). Courts allowed 31 271 motions, which is 0,2% fewer than in 2006. In the first half of 2008 (until 30/06/2008) the number of such motions amounted to 13 887, which was 28,7% fewer than in the first half of 2007 (19 495). Courts allowed 11 582 motions, i.e. 31,2% fewer than in the first half of 2007 (16 845).

On 31/12/2007, 10 461 people remained in detention on remand pending proceedings before district and regional courts, which was 13,2% fewer than at the end of 2006 (12 055 people). On 30/06/2008 the number of people in detention on remand pending proceedings before these courts amounted to 7 633, which was 35,3% fewer than at the end of the first half of 2007 (10 328).

As regards the number of people on remand pending investigation, this number amounted to 33 109 in the course of 2007 (no data have been provided for previous reporting periods). On 30/06/2008 the number of such people amounted to 15 656.

Concerning detention lasting between 12 months and 2 years or more than two years, in 2007 the number of such detentions pending proceedings before district courts has slightly increased and amounted respectively to 952 (918 in the year 2006) and 203 (192 in the year 2006). On 30/06/2008 the number of pre-trial detentions pending proceedings before district courts and lasting between 12 months and 2 years amounted to 586 (compared with 955 on 30/06/2007) and the number of pre-trial detentions lasting over 2 years amounted to 157 (compared with 185 on 30/06/2007).

Concerning pre-trial detentions pending proceedings before regional courts and lasting between 12 months and 2 years or more than two years, in 2007 their number decreased: respectively to 1 306 (1 362 in 2006) and 793 (850 in 2006). On 30/06/2008 their number amounted respectively to 1 264 and 701.

Concerning detention on remand pending investigation before the prosecutor, in the course of 2007 165 people were detained for a period between 6 months and 2 years and 29 remained in detention on remand for over 2 years (no data have been provided in this respect for previous years). On 30/06/2008 these figures amounted respectively to 61 and 16.

The authorities are of the opinion that the number of detainees on remand is gradually decreasing. According to the data provided by the prison authorities, in May 2001 it amounted to 25,000 (32% of the prison population), while in February 2008 to 11,000 (12,5% of the prison population). The statistics for 2008 show that the number of the court remand orders further decreased in comparison to 2007 (by almost 23 %). On 31/12/2008 the number of pre-trial detainees was 22,1 % lower than in 2007. As regards "long" detentions (between 12 months and 2 years and beyond 2 years) on 31/12/2008, the tendency was declining. Their number considerably decreased in 2008 before district courts (approximately by 50 %) and slightly decreased with respect to those ordered by regional courts.

• Assessment: the above data indicate a general downward trend in the number of suspects/accused remanded in custody. In 2008, the number of prosecutors' motions for applying pre-trial detention, the number of detentions ordered by courts, the number of people detained pending investigation and proceedings before district and regional courts decreased compared with the situation in 2007. Moreover, the number of long detentions (between 12 months and 2 years and over 2 years) has decreased in case of detention pending proceedings before district courts. Concerning detention pending proceedings before regional courts, the number of detentions lasting over 2 years has decreased, but that of detentions lasting between 12 months and a year has remained almost unchanged. The number of detentions on remand lasting over 6 months pending the prosecutor's investigation has also decreased. Thus the data for 2008 show a downward trend as regards long detentions.

Despite these positive developments, however, the Secretariat still notes with concern that the number of judgments of the European Court finding violations of Article 5§3 has increased. In the recent judgment of Kauczor (judgment of 3/02/2009, see also DD(2009)39), followed by a judgment in the case Hilgartner (judgment of 3/03/2009, final on 3/06/2009) the European Court concluded that many cases have demonstrated that the excessive length of detention on remand in Poland revealed a structural problem consisting of “a practice that is incompatible with the Convention” (§60) and invited the Polish authorities, under Article 46, to make further efforts to take general measures to solve this problem (§§61-62). It noted that approximately 145 applications raising this issue were currently pending before it, out of which nearly ninety had already been communicated to the Polish government (§ 56).

The measures taken/envisaged by the Polish authorities in response to Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)75 are welcomed but the Polish authorities are also encouraged to take further steps to solve the problem of excessive length of detention on remand. The examples of good practices provided in 2008 are very restricted and concern only 6 out of 11 appeal courts in the country. The domestic courts still very rarely decide to replace detention on remand by another preventive measure, even if in some cases the domestic judges refer to the Convention and the case-law of the European Court.

• Information is awaited on the impact of the amendment to Article 263 and on the adoption of further amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, on further awareness measures (publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgments) and monitoring of courts' practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand and other preventive measures as well as the introduction of an efficient mechanism for evaluating the trends in this respect. Moreover, it would be useful to receive information on the trends in 2009 concerning length of detention on remand, and in particular long detentions. Clarification would be also useful on the number of remands decided by district and regional courts and on the trends concerning detention pending investigation. Information is also awaited on the outcomes of the working group created to improve the monitoring of trends concerning the length of detention on remand.

2) Violations of Article 5§1 in the cases of Bagiński, D.P and G.K.:

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: For the year 2005 the Minister of Justice adopted “The guidelines for the exercise of supervision of the activity of ordinary courts”, on the basis of the Decree of 25/10/2002 on the Procedure of supervision of the administrative activity of courts. According to these guidelines, pending criminal cases in which detention on remand has been extended for more than 2 years are placed under the supervision of the presidents of courts of appeal, who are to ensure that proceedings are expedited rapidly.

In February 2006, the Minister of Justice wrote to all prosecutors reminding them of the legal rules concerning detention on remand. In this letter the Minister emphasised inter alia that prosecutors should conduct investigations promptly and that they should ask judges to prolong detention on remand, in principle, in cases in which a detainee is suspected of having committed a crime or an offence liable to a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment or more.

Moreover, in March 2007, the Minister of Justice sent out a circular to Presidents of courts of appeal concerning the finding of such a violation in the D.P. judgment.

• Assessment: In the circumstances, no further measure appears necessary.

3) Violation of Article 5§1 in the Łatasiewicz case: The European Court found that the domestic practice of prolonging detention on the sole basis of a criminal charge was the result, at the material time, of the lack of any precise rule in national law governing the situation of detainees during judicial proceedings, after expiry of the period of detention fixed by the detention order issued at the investigatory stage. This practice is no longer possible in the light of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that any extension of detention must be on the basis of a court decision.

• Assessment: This being the case, no further measure appears necessary.

4) Violation of Article 5§3 concerning the right to be brought promptly before a judge and violations of Article 5§4 in respect of the lack of fairness of the procedure to review the lawfulness of the applicants' detention on remand: These cases present similarities to that of Niedbała (judgment of 04/07/2000) closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)124 following the entry into force on 01/09/1998 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Article 249 of the Code, before deciding on the application of preventive measures, a court shall hear the defendant. His counsel shall also be allowed to attend the court's session.

• Assessment: no further measure appears necessary.

5) Violations of Article 5§4 (prompt examination of appeals against detention pending trial):

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: Under the terms of Article 252§3 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, any appeal against a preventive measure (including placing and keeping someone in detention pending trial) must be examined promptly. Article 254§1 provides that applications requesting lifting or modification of preventive measures must be decided by a prosecutor at the preliminary investigation stage, or by a judge when the criminal proceedings are at the trial stage, within three days.

• Assessment: This being the case, no further general measure appears necessary.

            6) Violations of Article 6§1: The cases present similarities to other cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings before criminal courts (see Kudła, 30210/96, Section 4.2).

            7) Violations of Article 8: The cases also present similarities to that of Klamecki No. 2 (31583/96, Section 4.2, Section 4.2).

            8) Publication of the judgments of the European Court: The judgments in the cases of Trzaska, Baranowski, Chodecki, Goral and Iłowiecki were published in the Bulletin of the Council of Europe Information Centre and disseminated to the competent authorities. The D.P., Olstowski and Chodecki judgments were also published on the website of the Ministry of Justice, www.ms.gov.pl <http://www.ms.gov.pl>.

                       - 41 cases mainly concerning the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence[53]

31583/96          Klamecki No. 2, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

43120/05           Andrulewicz, judgment of 03/04/2007, final on 24/09/2007

31038/06           Andrysiak, judgment of 20/05/2008, final on 20/08/2008

13637/03           Bartosiński, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

20138/03           Bobel, judgment of 22/01/2008, final on 22/04/2008

26846/05           Ćwiertniak, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 22/10/2008

20841/02           Drozdowski, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

35833/03           Dzitkowski, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 27/02/2008

55470/00           Ferla, judgment of 20/05/2008, final on 20/08/2008

36161/05           Jakubiak, judgment of 08/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008

20251/04           Janulis, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

72976/01           Jasiński, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

8363/04            Kliza, judgment of 06/09/2007, final on 06/12/2007

26744/02           Kisilewski, judgment of 07/07/2009, final on 07/10/2009

44521/04           Kołodziński, judgment of 08/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008

12772/06           Kotowski, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

10816/02           Kozimor, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

12269/02           Kozłowski Eryk, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

49128/06           Krawiecki, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009

51895/99           Kwiek, judgment of 30/05/2006, final on 30/08/2006

21890/03           Lewak, judgment of 06/09/2007, final on 31/03/2008

73988/01           Łuczko, judgment of 03/10/2006, final on 03/01/2007

14450/02           Maksym, judgment of 19/12/2006, final on 19/03/2007

37641/97           Matwiejczuk, judgment of 02/12/03, final on 02/03/04

42083/98           Mianowski, judgment of 16/12/03, final on 16/03/04

43837/06           Misiak, judgment of 03/06/2008, final on 03/09/2008

62323/00           Najdecki, judgment of 06/02/2007, final on 06/05/2007

6390/03            Nowicki, judgment of 27/02/2007, final on 27/05/2007

8260/04            Ochlik, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 29/10/2008

64284/01           Oleksy, judgment of 28/11/2006, final on 28/02/2007

10381/04           Owsik, judgment of 16/10/2007, final on 16/01/2008

24322/02           Panusz, judgment of 03/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008

42785/06           Pasternak, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 10/12/2009

39840/05           Pawlak, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

92/03                Pisk-Piskowski, judgment of 14/06/2005, final on 14/09/2005

29366/03           Stępniak, judgment of 29/01/2008, final on 29/04/2008

64283/01           Tomczyk Prokopyszyn, judgment of 28/03/2006, final on 28/06/2006

38007/02           Warsiński, judgment of 04/12/2007, final on 04/03/2008

63905/00           Wasilewski, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

39519/05           Zborowski No. 3, judgment of 22/04/2008, final on 22/07/2008, rectified on 06/05/2008

45133/06           Zborowski, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

77782/01           Luczak, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008[54]

35014/97          Hutten-Czapska, judgment of 19/06/2006 - Grand Chamber; (Article 41) judgment of 28/04/2008 - Grand Chamber – Friendly settlement

This case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Despite several civil and administrative actions brought between 1992 and 2002 the applicant, who had inherited her parent's house in Gdynia in 1990, could neither secure the re-housing of the tenants who had been assigned to apartments in her house nor freely fix the amount of their rent. This resulted from a law applied to private property in Poland instituting rent controls and restrictions on the termination of leases (a law of 1994, replaced by the 2001 Act and subsequently modified in 2004 following certain decisions by the Constitutional Court). This system, which had its origins in laws adopted during the communist period, fixed such a low rent ceiling that landlords could not even cover the cost of maintaining their buildings, still less make a profit.

The European Court (Grand Chamber) concluded that the finding of a violation did not reside solely in the question of the amount of the rent (unlike the conclusions of the chamber in its judgment of 22/02/2005) but was rather the result of the combined effect of the unsatisfactory provisions on the fixing of rent and the various restrictions on the right of landlords in the matter of terminating leases, the financial burdens imposed upon them and the total absence of any legal mechanism whereby they might compensate or mitigate losses sustained on maintenance or to obtain, where justified, any state assistance to that end.

In the light of the above, and having regard to the effects of the operation of the rent-control legislation during the whole period under consideration on the rights of the applicant and other persons in a similar situation, the Court considered that the Polish State had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the right of property.

“Pilot-judgment” procedure: The European Court considered that the Polish state must, through appropriate legal and/or other measures, above all secure in its domestic legal order a mechanism for 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 the protection of property rights under the Convention.

Applying the “pilot-judgment” procedure, as in the Broniowski case (Final Resolution CM/Res/DH(2009)89, the European Court concluded in the operative part of the principal judgment that the violation found was the result of a structural problem linked to a dysfunction in domestic law which:

-           despite the amendments introduced in 2004, had imposed and continued to impose restrictions on landlords' rights, particularly as the legislation contains defective provisions on the determination of rent;

-           had lacked and continued to lack any legal ways and means enabling them to at least to recover losses incurred in connection with property maintenance;

The European Court took due note of the Polish Constitutional Court's judgment of 19/04/2005 (rendered after the Chamber judgment of 22/02/2005) abrogating the provisions introduced by the 2004 law setting an annual 10% ceiling for increases in rents.

Nonetheless, and notwithstanding this judgment of the Constitutional Court, the Grand Chamber took the view that the general situation has not yet been brought into line with the standards of the Convention: the Polish authorities have not yet repealed the former restrictions with regard to the termination of leases nor put in place legal ways and means for landlords to mitigate or compensate losses incurred in connection with maintenance.

            1) General measures to solve problems at the basis of the repetitive violations of the Convention: The European Court concluded that “the principle of  lawfulness in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the foreseeability of the law ensuing from that rule required the State to fulfill its legislative promise to repeal the rent-control scheme - which by no means excluded the adoption of procedures securing the right of tenants in a different manner” (§188 of the judgment and §223 of the Grand Chamber judgment).

It observed that amongst the many possibilities at the disposal of the Polish state, there were those set out in the recommendations made to Parliament by the Constitutional Court on 29/06/2005 which among other things set out the features of a mechanism balancing the rights of landlords and tenants and criteria for what might be considered a “basic rent”, “economically justified rent” or “decent profit” (§§136-141 of the judgment).

            2) Individual applications lodged before the delivery of the pilot judgment: The European Court noted that the rent control scheme might potentially affect some 100,000 landlords and from 600,000 to 900,000 tenants. It accordingly postponed the examination of similar pending applications (standing at 18, one of which had been lodged by an association of some 200 landlords).

            3) European Court’s further assessment in the judgment of 28/04/2008 (friendly settlement): The European Court noted that the relevant legislative process was under way (see above) and underlined that by virtue of Article 46 of the Convention it will be for the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the general measures adopted by Poland (§§ 42-43). Having taken account the government’s demonstrated active commitment to taking measures to resolve the systemic problem identified in the principal judgment and the individual measures of redress afforded to the applicant under the terms of agreement, it decided to strike the case out of the list.

Individual measures: The applicant's house was definitively made available to her in February 2006.

The European Court awarded the applicant 30 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 22 500 euros for costs and expenses. In addition, the parties reached a friendly settlement according to which the government undertook in particular to compensate the pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant (see judgment of 28/04/2008).

• Assessment: No further individual measures appear necessary.

General measures:

         1) Measures taken following the adoption of the pilot judgment

         a) New provisions on rent increases: On 15/12/2006 the Polish Parliament adopted an amendment to the 2001 Act on the protection of the rights of tenants and the housing resources of municipalities (“the 2006 Amendment”) It modified a number of legal provisions governing leases, their termination and levels of rent with a view to implementing the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 19/04/2005 and its resultant recommendations for Parliament of 29/06/2005, as well as the Constitutional Court’s subsequent judgments of 17/05/2006 and of 11/09/2006. (Those judgments are referred to in paragraphs 12-13 of the Hutten-Czapska friendly-settlement judgment).

Consequently, annual rent increases of more than 3% of the reconstruction value of the dwelling may only be made in justified cases (Article 8a, Section 4a, of the amended Act).

At a tenant's written request, the landlord shall give the reasons for the increase and its calculation in writing within 14 days (Article 8a Section 4). A rent may not be increased before 6 months have elapsed since the last increase (Article 9 Section 1 b).

Although the newly adopted amendments extend and specify landlords' rights as regards rent increases, they neither define the notion of “decent profit” nor introduce the terms of “basic rent” or “economically justified rent”, as stated in the Constitutional Court's decision of 29/06/2005. According to the authorities, the scope of the notion of “economically justified rent” has been determined in the provisions of Article 8a on the increase of rents. The definition of the “decent profit” has been, however, left to national courts. The “decency” of rents is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In this respect, the authorities provided an example of a judicial decision (decision of 14/06/2007 of the Tarnów District Court), in which the court referred to the usual meaning of the word “decent” in the Polish language and also to the average interest rate on State Treasury bonds (5%). In any event, the national courts’ judgments affirm that financial situation of the tenant should have no impact on the determining of the “decency” of a rent.

On 24/08/2007 the Land Administration Act and certain other statutes were amended. These amendments introduced the “rent-mirror system”, i.e. a system for monitoring the levels of rent in all municipalities. It provides information on average rent levels in a given region and should serve as an auxiliary instrument enabling the courts to assess the basis for fixing or increasing rents.

         b) New provisions on maintenance of rented dwellings:

i) New statutory definition of expenses involved in maintenance: The December 2006 Amendment added a new subsection 8a to section 2(1) of the 2001 Act, providing that expenses connected with maintenance of a dwelling should be understood as expenses incumbent on the landlord and calculated proportionally to the usable surface of the dwelling in relation to the total usable surface of all dwellings in the building, including a fee for perpetual use of the land, property tax and the costs of:

-           maintenance and keeping property in  proper technical condition, as well as renovations;

-           administration of property;

-           upkeep of shared premises, lifts, collective aerial installations, intercoms and greenery;

-           property insurance;

-           other items, if they are stipulated in a lease agreement.

ii) Renovation refund The Act on assistance for thermal insulation and renovation adopted on 21/11/2008 and entered into force on 19/03/2009. It is part of the government’s housing programme, aimed at improving existing housing resources. In particular, it concerns tenement houses – both state and privately-owned – that, as stated in an explanatory report, have been neglected and fallen into disrepair as a result of the operation of the rent control scheme which made it impossible for landlords to receive rent that would secure investment in proper maintenance and renovations. The explanatory report states that within the next 8 years it will become necessary to demolish 40 000 tenement houses with 200 000 flats belonging to private individuals, municipalities or housing communes.

Under sections 3-7 of the Act, an investor who has carried out renovation or thermo-modernisation work will be entitled to the so-called “renovation refund” (premia remontowa) or “thermo-modernisation refund” (premia termomodernizacyjna).

A renovation refund means in practice a partial refund of a loan taken out for the purposes of renovating a building, including the replacement of windows, renovations of balconies, fitting of the necessary installations or equipment or alteration of the building resulting in its improvement.

Under section 9, a renovation refund will constitute 20% of a loan spent by an investor but not more than 15% of the costs of the entire renovation project. Thermo-modernisation refunds are subject to ceilings of 20% and 16% respectively.

The Act also introduced a system of compensatory refunds (premie kompensacyjne) available to owners whose property was subject to the rent control scheme between 12/11/1994 and 25/04/2005

To facilitate access to the refund, the Ministry of Infrastructure prepared an amendment to the Act, allowing owners to invest their own assets (not necessarily obtained by way of a loan from the BGK state bank) and to have them subsequently refunded. The amendment was adopted by the government on 5/01/ 2010 and will be laid before Parliament.

         c) New rules governing social accommodation:

i) Civil liability of municipalities for failure to supply social accommodation: On 11/09/2006 the Constitutional Court found that the provision of Article 18, Section 4, of the 2001 Act limiting municipalities' civil liability for damage resulting from failure to provide welfare accommodation to tenants entitled to it, was contrary to the Constitution. Consequently, this provision has been repealed. Nowadays, landlords may claim full compensation for such damage on the basis of the Civil Code. Under Section 18 of the 2001 Act, as amended by the 2006 Amendment, the municipality’s failure is statutorily deemed to be an “unlawful omission” within the meaning of Article 417 of the Civil Code.

ii) Financial assistance for social accommodation: On 8/12/2006 new legislation was adopted on financial assistance for welfare accommodation, protected accommodation, night shelters and housing for the homeless. It aims at solving the problem of the shortage of welfare accommodation in municipalities by providing means whereby the state may finance the construction of such housing. The law entered into force on 23/12/2006.

            2) Other measures foreseen: The Minister of Construction is currently preparing a draft law which would extend landlords' right to dispose of the object of lease.

            3) Rule 9 Submissions to the Committee of Ministers: Two sets of comments, by the National Real Property Owners’ Association, mainly concerning the Act on assistance for thermal insulation and renovation, have been brought to the attention of the Committee of Ministers, together with observations of the Polish delegation in August and October 2008. The Association criticised the limited budgetary funds foreseen for compensation in 2008-2012 and the fact that compensation can cover only 20% of the real loss established by the European Court. The government contested those submissions, arguing that the Act does not limit the amount of compensation to 20% of the sum obtained by Ms. Hutten-Czapska (for the details, see the document DD(2008)452).

            4) New developments before the European Court: In November 2009 the European Court communicated two cases as a follow-up to the pilot judgment procedure (27910/07 Piotrowski and 3485/02 Stowarzyszenie Właścicieli Nieruchomości w Łodzi) with the aim of assessing the compliance of the current situation with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The European Court inter alia put following questions to the government:

-           whether the matter has been resolved in domestic law,

-           whether the compensation scheme for thermal renovation offered adequate redress,

-           whether, in view of the complexity of the formula for calculating the compensatory refund and its conditions, the measure can be regarded as offering satisfactory redress.

• Assessment: In the light of the proceedings in the cases of Piotrowski and Stowarzyszenie Właścicieli Nieruchomości w Łodzi, a more detailed assessment of the general measures will be undertaken following the judgments in those cases.

• Pending those judgments further information would be welcome on the development of domestic courts' case-law concerning the definition of “decent profit”, the legislative work mentioned in item 2 above, as well as on other measures to prevent new, similar violations. Clarification would be also useful concerning the determination of the scope of the notion of “basic rent” and its introduction into the legislative framework, as well as on the practical implementation of the Act of 21/11/2008 on assistance for thermal insulation and renovation.

10373/05           Moskal, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 01/03/2010

This case concerns the privation of the applicant’s property due to the withdrawal of the early retirement pension which had been granted by mistake several months before and constituted the applicant's sole source of income (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

In August 2001 the Social Security Board granted the applicant an early retirement pension in order to allow her to take care for her son who needed constant care (“EWK pension”). The applicant resigned from her full-time job, in which she had been employed for the past thirty years. In June 2002 the Social Security Board reopened the proceedings, quashed the 2001 decision and refused to continue to pay the applicant her pension on the grounds that her child’s health condition was not severe enough to require his mother’s permanent care. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision in the courts. Following separate social-security proceedings, on 25/10/2005 the District Labour Office granted her another benefit amounting to approximately 50% of her discontinued early retirement pension, with retroactive effect from 25/10/2002, but without interest.

The European Court held that the applicant had applied for the early retirement pension in good faith and in compliance with the law. The 2002 decision had amounted to an interference with her possessions. The interference had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim. As regards proportionality, it was desirable that public authorities act with the utmost scrupulousness, in particular when dealing with matters of vital importance to individuals, such as welfare benefits. In this case the authorities, having discovered their mistake, had failed in their duty to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner. As a general principle, public authorities should not be prevented from correcting their mistakes. However, if a mistake was caused by the authorities themselves, a different proportionality approach had to be taken in determining whether the burden borne by the recipient of the benefit was excessive. As a result of the impugned measure, the applicant had been faced, practically from one day to the next, with the total loss of her early retirement pension, which constituted her sole source of income. Moreover, there was a risk that she would have considerable difficulty in securing new employment. It was not until three years later that she had been able to obtain a new benefit. The burden placed on the applicant had therefore been excessive.

The European Court noted that it had been seised of approximately 120 similar applications (§28).

22531/05          Bugajny and others, judgment of 06/11/2007, final on 01/03/2010, revised on 15/12/2009

This case concerns the violation of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions: refusal to expropriate land and compensate the applicants for the indefinite use and maintenance of their property as public roads (Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).Through their company, of which they retained 100% ownership, the applicants own land in Poznań. In 1995 the company asked the local municipality to decide on the division of the land with a view to building a housing estate. As a result, number of plots were designated for the construction of roads. Subsequently, relying on the Land Administration Act 1997, the company asked for the plots to be expropriated in exchange for compensation. The authorities refused, on the ground that the roads were “private” and that the land on which they were built therefore had to remain the property of the applicants' company. The administrative and civil courts upheld that refusal.

The European Court noted that there was an interference with the first aspect of Article 1 Protocol 1 - the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as “the measures complained of significantly reduced in practice the effective exercise of their ownership” (§59). The European Court found that the measures taken by the authorities served the general interest of the community. However, the applicants had not only to bear the costs of building and maintaining the roads on the company's land but also to accept its use as public property without any time limit. It found therefore that a fair balance had not been struck as the applicants “had to bear an excessive individual burden” (§74). Consequently, the interference was disproportionate.

- 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.

 

- 55 cases mainly concerning the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy[55]

                       Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)28

                        (see Appendix for the list of cases in the Kudła group)

                       - 67 cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative bodies and courts[56]

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Fuchs group)

                        - 221 cases of length of proceedings before civil and labour courts[57]

                        Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)28

                        (see Appendix for the list of cases in the Podbielski group)

- 28 cases against Portugal / 28 affaires contre le Portugal

16983/06           Laranjeira Marques da Silva, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

The case concerns the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, a journalist, due to his conviction in 2005 for defamation and breach of judicial secrecy, following the publication of an article on criminal proceedings against a person who was both a doctor and a politician (violations of Article 10).

The European Court found that the convictions, both for violation of judicial secrecy and for defamation, constituted a disproportionate interference in the applicant’s right to freedom of expression which did not correspond to any “compelling social need” (§§44,56 of the judgment). The Article 10 issue is being dealt with in the Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A group of cases. (11182/03, Section 4.2).

The case also concerns the unfairness of the appeal proceedings, in that the Court of Appeal failed rule on the applicant’s claim of that the aggravating circumstance applied in its decision by the first-instance court did not apply at appeal (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court stated that the issue raised by the applicant of non-applicability of the aggravating circumstance under Article 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required a specific and explicit response by the Court of Appeal (§24 of the judgment).

                        - 4 cases concerning freedom of expression[58]

11182/03+         Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Communicação, S.A., judgment of 26/04/2007, final on 26/07/2007

41665/07           Alves da Silva, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

20620/04           Azevedo, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 27/06/2008

17107/05           Campos Dâmaso, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008

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.

                        - 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.

- 3 cases of lack of an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of judicial proceedings[59]

- Civil proceedings

33729/06           Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro, judgment of 10/06/2008, final on 10/09/2008

33661/06           Anticor-Sociedade de Anti-Corrosão, Lda, judgment of 23/02/2010, final on 23/05/2010

46595/06           Pereira, judgment of 16/02/2010, final on 16/05/2010

- 17 cases concerning inadequate compensation for land expropriated under the agrarian reform of 1975[60]

30533/03           Carvalho Acabado, judgment of 18/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006

10172/04           Campos Costa and others, judgment of 30/10/2007, final on 30/01/2008

24668/05          Companhia Agrícola Cortes e Valbom S.A., judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 30/12/2008

21513/05           Companhia Agrícola da Barrosinha S.A., judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

21240/02+         Companhia Agrícola de Penha Garcia, S.A. and 16 other cases “Agrarian reform”, judgment of 19/12/2006, final on 19/03/2007

11019/06           Companhia Agrícola do Vale de Água, S.A., judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

44311/04+        Costa Capucho and 23 other cases “Agrarian reform”, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

30844/05          De Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009 and of 08/06/2010, final on 04/10/2010

25025/05           De Sousa Carvalho Seabra, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009

41453/02           Herdade da Comporta - Actividades Agro Silvícola e Turísticas, S.A., judgment of 10/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008

31720/05           Kindler de Barahona, judgment of 10/02/2009, final on 10/05/2009

44386/05           Melo e Faro Maldonado Passanha and others, judgment of 24/02/2009, final on 24/05/2009

35254/05           Simões Alves Noronha, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 03/06/2009

31677/04           Sociedade Agrícola Herdade da Palma S.A., judgment of 10/07/2007, final on 12/11/2007

17199/05+        Sociedade Agrícola da Herdade das Várzeas, Lda and 22 other cases “Agrarian reform”, judgment of 23/09/2008, final on 23/12/2008

30808/05          Vasconcelos Do Couto and 23 other cases “Agrarian reform”, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 03/06/2009

1408/06            Vilhena Peres Santos Lanca Themudo E Melo and others, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

- 342 cases against Romania / 342 affaires contre la Roumanie

63258/00           Gagiu, arrêt du 24/02/2009, définitif le 24/05/2009

L’affaire concerne le non-respect de l’obligation positive de protéger la vie du requérant, décédé en 2001 à l’hôpital pénitentiaire, et de mener une enquête effective concernant son décès (violation de l’article 2 sous ses aspects matériel et procédural).

En ce qui concerne l’aspect matériel de l’article 2, le requérant s’est plaint dans sa requête d’un traitement mettant sa vie en danger. La Cour européenne, à plus forte raison après le décès du requérant, a fait sienne cette affirmation. Elle a considéré que les autorités pénitentiaires et médicales n’avaient pas réagi avec la diligence nécessaire pour fournir au requérant les soins médicaux requis. En outre, celles-ci connaissaient les antécédents médicaux du requérant et les autres affections graves découvertes au cours de la détention et le fait que son état de santé nécessitait une surveillance et un traitement médical appropriés.

Pour ce qui est de l’aspect procédural de l’article 2, la Cour européenne a conclu que l’enquête menée par les autorités n’avait pas été effective, vu qu’elle n’était pas de nature à permettre l’identification des éventuelles responsabilités des personnes chargées de la surveillance de l’état de santé du requérant et de fournir des soins médicaux adéquats à celui-ci. Ainsi, elle a noté que cette enquête, quoique ouverte d’office et de manière diligente, avait un objet limité au traitement prodigué à l’hôpital où le requérant avait été amené un jour avant son décès, et était susceptible de méconnaître la négligence des autorités pénitentiaires chargées de fournir à celui-ci, pour la période antérieure à sa mort, des soins médicaux capables de la prévenir.

L’affaire porte également sur les conditions de détention dégradantes en raison de la surpopulation carcérale et l’absence de conditions sanitaires et d’hygiène requises par l'état de santé du requérant (violation de l'article 3), le non-respect de l’obligation positive de fournir au requérant le nécessaire, en particulier des timbres, pour sa correspondance avec la Cour européenne (violation de l’article 8) et l’entrave dans l’exercice efficace du droit de recours individuel, notamment par l’attitude dissuasive des autorités pénitentiaires et le retard injustifié dans la fourniture des copies des documents nécessaires afin que le requérant puisse étayer sa demande devant la Cour européenne (violation de l‘article 34).

• Aucune information n’a été fournie par les autorités à ce jour.

5325/03            Voiculescu, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009[61]

40933/02           Al-Agha, arrêt du 12/01/2010, définitif le 12/04/2010

L'affaire concerne les mauvais traitements subis par le requérant, résultant des conditions de vie au centre de rétention de l’aéroport de Bucarest de février 2000 à septembre 2002 (violation de l’article 3).

L'affaire concerne également la détention illégale du requérant au centre de rétention de février 2000 à juillet 2003 (violation de l’article 5§1) et l’absence d'accès à un tribunal pour contester la légalité de sa détention (violation de l'article 5§4).

Elle a enfin trait à l’absence de possibilité d’obtenir réparation pour une privation de liberté contraire à l’article 5 de la Convention (violation de l’article 5§5). 

Le requérant a été libéré du centre de rétention en juillet 2003.

• Aucune information n’a été fournie par les autorités à ce jour.

42716/02           Toma, arrêt du 24/02/2009, définitif le 24/05/2009

L’affaire porte sur le traitement inhumain infligé au requérant par des agents de police et l’absence d’enquête effective à cet égard (violation de l’article 3 sous ses volets matériel et procédural).

L’affaire concerne par ailleurs la violation du droit du requérant d'être aussitôt traduit devant un juge (violation de l'article 5§3) et de celui de voir jugée dans un bref délai sa plainte contre l’ordonnance du procureur de mise en détention provisoire (violation de l'article 5§4).

L’affaire concerne aussi le non-respect du droit du requérant au respect de sa vie privée à cause de la diffusion d’images et de la publication d’une photographie le représentant au siège de la police (violation de l’article 8). Sur ce dernier point, la Cour européenne a estimé que le comportement des agents de police qui ont appelé les journalistes et les ont autorisés, sans l’accord du requérant, à enregistrer au siège de la police aux fins de diffusion dans les médias, avait constitué une ingérence ne poursuivant aucun but légitime.

• Aucune information n’a été fournie par les autorités à ce jour.

- 14 cases mainly concerning ill-treatment by the police and/or lack of an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment[62]

46430/99          Anghelescu Barbu No. 1, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on 05/01/2005

64541/01           Bolovan, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

42066/98          Bursuc, judgment of 12/10/2004, final on 12/01/2005

48254/99          Cobzaru, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

6773/02            Damian-Burueană and Damian, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 26/08/2009

49234/99          Dumitru Popescu No. 1, judgment of 26/04/2007, final on 26/07/2007

25230/03           Georgescu, judgment of 13/05/2008, final on 13/08/2008

64536/01           Iambor No. 1, judgment of 24/06/2008, final on 24/09/2008

14526/03           Lupaşcu, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

43247/02          Melinte, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007

10778/02           Niţă, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 06/04/2009

71090/01           Olteanu, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009

42722/02           Stoica, judgment of 04/03/2008, final on 04/06/2008

- 11 cases mainly concerning poor detention conditions[63]

22088/04           Bragadireanu, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

12535/04           Artimenco, judgment of 30/06/2009, final on 30/09/2009

6586/03            Brânduşe, judgment of 07/04/2009, final on 07/07/2009

75109/01+         Burzo, judgment of 30/06/2009, final on 30/09/2009

25763/03           Măciucă, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 26/08/2009

4792/03            Petrea, judgment of 29/04/2008, final on 01/12/2008

3036/04            Radu Eugen Gabriel, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

58478/00           Rupa No. 1, judgment of 16/02/2008, final on 16/03/2009

28304/02           Schwartz Aharon, judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010

12934/02          Stoicescu Marian, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

5269/02            Tănase, judgment of 12/05/2009, final on 12/08/2009

41124/02           Filip, arrêt du 14/12/2006, définitif le 14/03/2007

Cette affaire concerne l’illégalité de l’internement psychiatrique du requérant, ordonné sur demande du parquet en novembre 2002 en vue d’établir s’il possédait la faculté de discernement (violation de l’article 5§1).

La Cour européenne a estimé que l’aliénation du requérant n’avait pas été établie de manière probante du fait de l’absence d’avis médical requis au préalable et d’indications précises des éléments ayant conduit le parquet à demander la mesure d’internement. Elle a relevé en outre que l’internement n’avait pas respecté les voies légales dans la mesure où la commission médicale compétente aurait dû être saisie au moment de la mise en œuvre de la mesure d’internement. A cet égard, la commission saisie un mois après n’a pas confirmé la nécessité de la mesure d’internement.

L’affaire concerne en outre l’absence de contrôle à bref délai de la légalité de la détention psychiatrique du requérant (plus de huit semaines) (violations de l’article 5§4). A cet égard, le tribunal compétent n’a pas statué sur la plainte du requérant soumise en décembre 2002, en vertu de l’article 434 du code de procédure pénale, mais l’a transmise au parquet. Le parquet a ordonné la mainlevée de la mesure d’internement en janvier 2003 et a rejeté la plainte sans examen.

Enfin, l’affaire concerne l’inadéquation de l’enquête menée sur les allégations de mauvais traitements, formulées par le requérant (violation de l’article 3). La Cour européenne a noté que le parquet ne s’était pas prononcé sur ces plaintes et que les autorités roumaines n’avaient fourni aucune information permettant d’établir qu’une enquête pénale avait été ouverte à cet égard.

Mesures de caractère individuel: Après la levée de la mesure d'internement et la remise en liberté du requérant les juridictions roumaines ont ordonné la mise en œuvre de mesures de suivi préconisées par la commission. Le requérant ne forma pas de recours contre cette décision.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la possibilité de l’ouverture d’une enquête au sujet des allégations de mauvais traitements dans l’hôpital psychiatrique.

Mesures de caractère général:

• Des informations sont attenduessur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires. En particulier, afin d’évaluer la nécessité et la portée de mesures particulières, les autorités sont invitées à clarifier :

- la base juridique de l’ouverture d’enquêtes pénales et les raisons pour lesquelles les plaintes du requérant au sujet de ses mauvais traitements n’ont pas été examinées ;

- les dispositions législatives actuelles réglementant la détention dans les hôpitaux psychiatriques.

• Sont également attendues la publication et la diffusion de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne aux juridictions et autorités compétentes afin d'attirer leur attention sur les exigences de la Convention telles qu'elles découlent de cet arrêt.

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.

31679/96           Ignaccolo-Zenide, judgment of 25/01/00[64]

- 2 cases concerning the failure to enforce court decisions granting visiting rights[65]

37284/02           Lafargue, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 13/10/2006

31703/05           Costreie, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 1/03/2010

4023/04            Amănălăchioai, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 26/08/2009[66]

28341/95          Rotaru, judgment of 04/05/00 - Grand Chamber[67]

                       Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)57

78060/01           Petrina, judgment of 14/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

This case concerns the failure by the domestic courts to protect the reputation of the applicant, a politician, in defamation proceedings following allegations in a satirical magazine that he had collaborated with the former communist secret police (violation of Article 8).

By final decisions of July 2000, a domestic court rejected the applicant’s criminal complaints concerning insult and defamation lodged against two journalists who had asserted that he had been collaborator of the former communist secret police, the Securitate. Thus, invoking the European Court’s case-law on the matter and stressing the importance of the direct application of the Convention in domestic law, the court stated that the journalists’ affirmations were value-judgments which resulted from the freedom of opinion and from the right to communicate ideas. The court added that the journalists were pamphleteers and that the consequences of this type of publishing had positive effect on society.

The European Court considered that, even if the journal in which the articles were published had a satirical character, these articles offended the applicant, in absence of any indication concerning his membership of the Securitate. It also added that the articles did not contain any ironical or humoristic element, that they misrepresented the reality and that, even if the affirmations could be considered as value-judgments, they lacked any factual basis (§§44, 48 and 50 of the judgment).

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

• Information is expected on possible measures to remedy any negative consequences of the violation found by the European Court with respect to the applicant.

General measures:

• Information is expected on the authorities’ assessment as to whether the violation found by the European Court in this case is of an isolated nature and on possible measures taken or envisaged to avoid new, similar violations. In any event, publication of the European Court's judgment and its dissemination among relevant courts are expected, to raise their awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

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).

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 27/09/2010. Bilateral contacts are currently under way aimed at securing the additional information necessary to present an action plan / action report to the Committee.

70786/01           Rosengren, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008[68]

75300/01           Ieremeiov No. 1, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

4637/02            Ieremeiov No. 2, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

The cases concern the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in two sets of criminal proceedings for defamation brought against the applicant, a journalist, following the publication in June 2000 of articles he had written. In both sets of proceedings the courts acquitted the applicant at first instance. However, the appellate courts sentenced the applicant to administrative fines and ordered him to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

According to the European Court, the fact that the applicant had been able to address the domestic courts before the end of the hearings could not be equated with his right to be heard during trial, given that the courts had to carry out an assessment of the subjective element of the alleged offence, that is, the applicant’s intent to denigrate. The Court therefore concluded that by quashing the first-instance judgments and re-examining the merits of the accusations against the applicant without hearing evidence from him and without allowing him to present his defence, the Romanian courts had failed to comply with the requirements of a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

The cases also concern the disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The Court found that the articles in question, concerning two public figures, had dealt with issues – indecent behaviour towards an intern and rumours of collaboration with the communist political police – which were of legitimate public concern and had therefore contributed to a debate of public interest.

Furthermore, there had been facts to support the applicant’s statements. The Court attached no importance to the domestic courts’ finding that the applicant had acted in bad faith, insofar as the criminal proceedings lacked the requirements of a fair trial. Although the fines and damages imposed on the applicant had been moderate, the Court found that the Romanian authorities had not given relevant and sufficient reasons in either of the cases to justify the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression (violation of Article 10).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

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.

1434/02+          Lupaş and others, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2007

The case concerns the violation of the applicants' right of access to a court due to the application of a rule requiring unanimity amongst joint owners in order to bring an action for recovery of a property held in common which had been nationalised under the former regime (violation of Article 6§1).

The 19 applicants are the descendants of certain joint owners of a 50-hectare plot on the Black Sea coast, which was expropriated in 1950 for the construction of a military base. In 1998 and 1999 three actions for recovery of the property were brought by some of the applicants, without the agreement of the heirs of two of the former co-owners. Between 2001 and 2002 all three actions were dismissed at final instance by the Supreme Court of Cassation pursuant to the unanimity rule, on account of the refusal of one of the heirs and the difficulty of identifying all the heirs of one of the former owners.

The European Court noted that the unanimity rule had satisfied the criteria of accessibility and predictability and it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of all the heirs of the former joint owners of the property. On the other hand, given the circumstances of the case, the strict application of the rule erects an insurmountable obstacle to any future attempt to establish the applicants' title, and imposes a disproportionate burden on them by denying them any clear and concrete possibility of having their request determined by a court.

Individual measures: Romanian law provides, in Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the possibility of reopening of civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court found a violation of the European Convention. As the Convention and the case-law of the Court have direct effect under Romanian Law, courts will without doubt adapt the jurisprudence criticised in this case.

In addition, all applicants were awarded just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: Consequently, it seems that no other individual measure is necessary.

General measures: Although the unanimity rule applied in the present case had no base in domestic legislation, it was adhered to by most of the domestic courts. In its judgment, the European Court noted with interest a draft law amending the civil code, which eliminates the unanimity rule.

• Information is expected on measures taken or envisaged to avoid future violations, in particular, the draft law setting aside the unanimity rule in this context and the possible time frame for its adoption.

• Publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment among relevant courts and authorities are expected, to raise domestic courts' awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

42790/02           Deak, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 06/04/2009

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the incorrect application of the law by domestic courts (violation of Article 6§1).

By a final judgment rendered in May 2002, a domestic court rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s action, by which she contested a decision of an administrative commission concerning the calculation of her pension rights, stating that this administrative decision could not be contested before the courts.

The European Court considered that, although the legislation regarding contestation of administrative decisions concerning pension rights is not in question as such, its application by the domestic courts led to a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court (§31 of the judgment).

Individual measures: The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. She may request the reopening of the proceedings under Article 322 (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

• Assessment: no further individual measure appears to be necessary.

General measures: It seems that the violation in this case was an isolated one.

• Information is expected on measures taken or envisaged to avoid new, similar violations. In any event, publication of the European Court's judgment and its dissemination among relevant courts are expected in order to raise their awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

48107/99           Paroisse Greco Catholique Sâmbata Bihor, arrêt du 12/01/2010, définitif le 12/04/2010 

L'affaire concerne une atteinte au droit d’accès de l’église requérante à un tribunal en raison du refus des juridictions nationales de statuer sur son litige l’opposant à l’Eglise orthodoxe et portant sur l’usage partagé d’un édifice religieux (violation de l’article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a constaté que par arrêt définitif du 12/01/1998, la cour d’appel avait rejeté l'action de la requérante en se fondant sur l'article 3 du décret-loi n^o 126/1990, applicable au moment des faits, au motif que les litiges portant sur un droit de propriété ou d'usage d'un édifice religieux échappaient à la compétence des tribunaux et étaient de la compétence exclusive des commissions mixtes constituées des représentants des communautés religieuses gréco catholique et orthodoxe.

L'affaire concerne également la discrimination subie par la requérante dans l’exercice de son droit d’accès à un tribunal du fait d’une jurisprudence contradictoire des tribunaux nationaux en la matière (violation de l’article 14 combiné avec l’article 6§1).

• Aucune information n’a été fournie par les autorités à ce jour.

17309/02           Grozescu, arrêt du 27/09/2007, définitif le 27/12/2007

L’affaire concerne l’iniquité d’une procédure civile devant une cour d’appel en raison de l’audition de la partie adverse, en décembre 2001, sans que le requérant et son avocat en aient été informés (violation de l’article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a relevé que la cour d’appel avait rouvert le débat pour entendre la partie adverse, sans en informer le requérant, et avait rendu une nouvelle décision qui lui était défavorable.

Mesures de caractère individuel: La Cour européenne a estimé que le constat de violation constituait une satisfaction équitable suffisante au titre du préjudice moral subi. L’article 322§9 du Code de procédure civile roumain prévoit la possibilité de rouvrir des procédures civiles lorsque la Cour européenne a constaté une violation de la Convention.

• Evaluation: aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général:

• Des informations sont attendues sur la pratique actuelle des juridictions civiles en matière d’audience orales dans le cadre des procédures en recours ainsi que sur les mesures envisagées pour prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

• Sont également attendues : la publication et diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne à l’attention des juridictions concernées afin d’attirer leur attention sur les exigences de la Convention telles qu’elles découlent de cette affaire.

- 3 cases concerning the failure to observe the principle of legal certainty as final judgments resolving the applicants’ cases were not taken into account[69]

4351/02            Amurăriţei, judgment of 23/09/2008, final on 23/12/2008

9164/02            Ichim, judgment of 10/03/2009, final on 10/06/2009

7901/02            Hagiescu and others, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

6079/02            Prodanof and others No. 2, judgment of 14/10/2008, final on 14/01/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the occupation by the state of their flat by virtue of a government decision adopted in contradiction with a final court judgment ordering the restitution of the property to the applicants (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

By a final judgment of July 1997, a domestic court ordered the state to restore the applicants’ property which had been nationalised during the communist period. In May 2001, the government adopted a decision transferring the flat from the property of the state into that of the Romanian Intelligence Service.

The European Court noted that the adoption of the government decision and the subsequent occupation by the state of the applicants’ flat for approximately a year and a half constituted an interference with their property rights. It stated that this interference had not been legal, given the fact that the state disposed of a property in respect of which domestic courts had found definitively it had no valid title due to the illegal nationalisation. (§§32, 35 and 51).

Individual measures: The property was returned to the applicants before the European Court rendered its judgment. In addition, the European Court awarded them just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: no further measure appears to be necessary.

General measures: It seems that the violation in this case was an isolated one.

• Information is expected on measures taken or envisaged to avoid, new similar violations. In any event, publication of the European Court's judgment and its dissemination among relevant courts and authorities are expected in order to raise their awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

36478/02           Jones, arrêt du 3/02/2009, définitif le 3/05/2009

L'affaire concerne la violation du droit du requérant au respect de ses biens en raison des démarches des autorités administratives l’empêchant d’entrer en possession de son bien pendant environ cinq ans (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

En juillet 2001, la mairie de Giurgiu avait mis le requérant en possession d’un immeuble. Le préfet est ensuite intervenu au nom du gouvernement pour s’opposer à cette décision et il s’en est suivi une série de procédures judiciaires et de décisions contradictoires ayant abouti finalement à la restitution du bien au requérant en juin 2006, cinq ans après la décision initiale.

La Cour européenne a considéré que c’était l’obligation des autorités de clarifier la situation de l’immeuble en question et de s’assurer du respect de la procédure légale de restitution des immeubles nationalisés, notant que le requérant avait été privé également de toute indemnité ou mesure réparatrice. La Cour européenne a aussi exprimé des doutes quant à la pertinence des motifs exposés par les juridictions nationales ayant décidé l’annulation de la décision administrative de restitution.

• Aucune information n’a été fournie par les autorités à ce jour.

21911/03           Tudor Tudor, arrêt du 24/03/2009, définitif le 24/06/2009

L’affaire concerne la violation du droit du requérant à un procès équitable en raison de la jurisprudence contradictoire de la cour d’appel de Bucarest concernant l’interprétation de certains aspects des lois sur la restitution des propriétés (violation de l’article 6§1).

A cet égard, par décision définitive rendue en janvier 2003, la cour d’appel de Bucarest a ordonné au requérant de restituer à l’ancien propriétaire un appartement qu’il avait acheté à l’Etat en vertu de la loi n° 112/1995 sur la situation juridique de certains biens immeubles à usage d'habitation. Le même tribunal a adopté des décisions contradictoires dans des affaires identiques introduites par l’ancien propriétaire contre des acheteurs d’appartements situés dans le même immeuble que le sien.

En constatant la violation, la Cour européenne a noté en particulier que les interprétations divergentes avaient été rendues par le même tribunal, qui représentait en outre la dernière instance en la matière. Elle a noté aussi que l’interprétation des aspects essentiels des lois concernant la restitution des propriétés variait encore et qu’il n’existait aucune interprétation définitive donnée par les tribunaux en la matière.

Mesures individuelles et / ou générales : Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en dates des 27 et 29/09/2010.

• 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.

23066/02           Faimblat, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009[70]

- 240 cases concerning the failure to restore or compensate for nationalised property (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Străin group) The violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases originated in an important systemic problem connected with the ineffectiveness of the mechanism set up in Romania after 1989 to afford restitution or compensation for properties nationalised during the communist period. I Introductory case summary: A first series of cases concern the sale by the state of nationalised property to the tenants, without securing compensation for the legitimate owners, despite domestic courts’ findings, between 1993 and 2006, that the acts of nationalisation had been unlawful (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, see the case of Strain and others, judgment of 21/07/2005). A second series of cases relate to delays by the administrative authorities in enforcing or failure to enforce judicial or administrative decisions delivered between 1991 and 2006, ordering restitution of nationalised property and/or payment of compensation in lieu (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or/and of Article 6§1, see the Popescu Sabin case, judgment of 02/03/04). Some cases also concern the excessive length of proceedings brought by the applicants to recover the property at issue, the quashing of final court decisions upon application for nullity lodged by the Prosecutor General or the failure of the domestic courts to address decisive arguments brought by the applicants (violations of Article 6§1). II Court’s findings under Article 46 The European Court observed in several of these cases that the violations found were systemic in nature and had their origin in a deficiency in the Romanian legal order and administrative practice (see the Viasu, Faimblat and Katz judgments, delivered in 2008 and 2009). Invoking Committee of Ministers’ Resolution Res(2004)3 and its Recommendation Rec(2004)6, the European Court indicated measures that might be appropriate to remedy the systemic problem identified. Thus, it considered that the authorities must ensure by appropriate legal and administrative measures the effective and rapid implementation of the right to restitution or compensation according to the principles provided in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the case-law of the European Court. Those objectives could be achieved, for example, by amending the current restitution mechanism and urgently setting up simplified and efficient procedures based on legislative and regulatory measures capable of taking into consideration various interests at issue (see the Viasu judgment, §83 and further details in the judgments of Faimblat,  §§53-54 and Katz, §35). III Pilot judgment procedure In a pilot judgment delivered on 12/10/2010 in the case of Maria Atanasiu and others (30767/05), which is not yet final, the Court observed that the ineffectiveness of the compensation and restitution mechanism continues to pose a large-scale, recurrent problem in Romania. It gave additional indications as to the causes of the problems and suggested the kinds of measures that might be appropriate to solve this systemic problem. The Court held that measures capable of providing adequate redress to all those affected by the restitution laws must be put in place within 18 months from the date on which the pilot judgment becomes final. The Court adjourned the examination of applications stemming from the same general problem for the same period of 18 months. Individual measures: In some cases, the European Court ordered the return of the properties in question or the attribution of comparable properties to the applicants or payment of just satisfaction for pecuniary damage corresponding to their market value within three months of the date on which its judgments became final. In some other cases, the European Court awarded just satisfaction for pecuniary damage corresponding to the market value of the properties in question or to the amount settled by the domestic administrative or judicial decisions. In a small number of cases, the European Court ordered the authorities to determine and pay the amount of the compensation due to the applicants. In a few cases, it reserved the question of the application of Article 41. Finally, in most of the cases the European Court also awarded just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. • Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicants in a number of cases, in particular whether their properties have been returned or if they have received just satisfaction for pecuniary damage. General measures: 1) Legislative framework before 2005: After 1989, the Romanian Parliament passed a series of laws on restitution for properties nationalised during the Communist regime. The European Court noted in this respect that repetitive legislative changes to the restitution and compensation mechanism were at the origin of the organisational difficulties encountered by the authorities in this process. It also noted that the changes proved to be ineffective in practice and had resulted in inconsistent judicial practice and a general lack of legal certainty (see for example §§94 et seq. of the Paduraru judgment). It should be noted in particular that the scope of the first set of laws adopted in 1991-1997 was subsequently broadened in 2000-2001 as regards persons who could claim restitution of residential properties in kind and the area of land that could be restored. The cap initially foreseen on compensation for the property which could not be restored was abolished. Furthermore, the ensuing regulations repeatedly modified the deadlines for the submission of restitution claims. 2) The restitution and compensation mechanism under Law No. 247/2005: This Law made substantial amendments to the existing restitution laws, in particular by establishing a single administrative procedure for claiming compensation, applicable to all properties concerned. It provides the obligation to restore in kind or, if that is impossible, compensation equivalent to the market value of the property. New time-limits were set for lodging claims for restitution or compensation: 60 days for agricultural land and 6 months for immovable property that had belonged to religious institutions and national minorities organisations. a) The procedure under Law No. 247/2005: As a first step, claims are examined by the local authorities, which decide upon the restitution in kind or the award of compensation. Their decisions are subject to review by the prefect. If the prefect is satisfied as to their lawfulness, he is required to forward them to a newly created body - the Central Compensation Board (“the Central Board”). If the prefect considers such decisions to be unlawful, he may apply for judicial review. Upon transfer of file, the Central Board must examine the lawfulness of decisions refusing restitution in kind and then transfer the file to authorised evaluators who determine the amount of compensation. On the basis of their report, the Central Board may either issue compensation certificates or return the file to the local authorities for completion. Law No. 247/2005 does not lay down time-limits for the processing of files by the Central Board or fix the order in which they should be dealt with. While initially they were processed randomly, since September 2008 the Central Board decided to deal with them in the order of their registration. b) Compensation mechanism under Law No. 247/2005: Those so entitled might be compensated in the form of participation, as shareholders, in a mutual investment fund organised as a Romanian limited company (S.A.), Proprietatea, which was registered with the Bucharest Companies Registry on 29/12/2005 (see http://www.fondulproprietatea.ro/en/). The European Court noted with interest that Law No. 247/2005 applies the principles expressed in international case-law related to illegal or de facto expropriation. However, the European Court found on several occasions that this fund (the “Property Fund”) was not yet operational to the extent of being effectively able to provide the applicants with compensation. Moreover, Law No. 247/2005 did not take into consideration the prejudice resulting from delay in securing compensation. c) Improvement of the compensation mechanism: Government Ordinance No. 81/2007 aimed at accelerating compensation procedure in respect of nationalised property provided that, as of 1/10/2007, claimants who had been awarded compensation certificates had the choice between receiving part of the amount in cash (up to a limit of 500 000 RON) and the remainder in shares in the Property Fund, or receiving the entire amount in shares. Monetary compensation of less than 250 000 RON was to be paid in one instalment within one year from the date the payment certificate was issued. Sums between 250 000 and 500 000 RON were to be paid in two instalments over two years. Up until 1/02/2008, 2440 requests for monetary compensation had been registered, 855 of which were finalised (the compensation paid in total amounted to 72 000 000 RON). Government Emergency Ordinance No. 62 of 30/06/2010 suspended the payment of monetary compensation for two years in order to balance the budget. During this period compensation titles could only be converted into shares. As to the Property Fund, it should be noted that the shareholders appointed its administrator in July 2010. The Fund has not yet been listed on the stock exchange, but on 18/05/2010, the Fund applied for registration with the National Securities Commission, which appears to be the first step towards its listing on the stock exchange. In addition, under Government Decree No. 1581/2008, it is currently possible to transfer shares in this Fund amongst shareholders or to third parties. Since 1/11/2007, the Property Fund has been distributing dividends to shareholders registered with the Shareholder Registry. On 11/10/2010, the Property Fund began to distribute dividends to its shareholders in respect of 2008 and 2009. d) Sanction mechanism: Law No. 247/2005, as modified by Government Ordinance No. 209/2005 (approved by Law No. 263/2006), provides a control mechanism for the implementation of the restitution decisions. Thus, a special Control Body within the National Authority for the Restitution of Property may exercise administrative control and impose sanctions against the local authorities involved in the restitution process. In the first eight months of 2006, this body carried out more than 300 controls and sanctioned approximately 6% of all acting mayors in Romania. The value of the imposed fines amounted to 1 330 000 RON (380 000 EUR). 3) Case-law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“HCCJ”): The HCCJ ruled that the procedure provided by Law No. 247/2005 did not apply to claims for restitution or compensation already determined by local administrative authorities under Law No. 10/2001 (concerning all properties other that agricultural land). It considered that decisions taken in this respect could no longer be revoked as they gave rise to property rights for the persons concerned (see judgments Nos. 52/2007, 6723/2007 and 6812/2008). As to claims submitted to the Central Board under Law No. 247/2005 on which no decision had been given, the HCCJ considered that the courts could not replace the Board to calculate the amount of compensation. The HCCL also ruled that although the Board was not bound by any statutory time-limit in deciding on restitution and compensation claims, it must decide within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see inter alia judgment No. 3857/2008). 4) Stock-taking on restitution of nationalised properties: On 22/09/2010, the authorities provided statistical data on claims for restitution and/or compensation which had been submitted under some of the restitution laws. However, since the data provided is only partial, they do not afford a clear view of the overall situation and need to be completed. The authorities equally provided an estimate of the total value of compensation expected to be paid under the restitution laws, which amounts to approximately 21 billion EUR, whereas Romania’s GDP for 2009 was of approximately 120 billion EUR. 5) Action plan provided by the authorities: On 25/02/2010, further to the Committee of Ministers’ decision at the 1059th meeting (June 2009), the authorities provided an action plan for the implementation of these judgments. On 22/09/2010, complementary information was provided in respect of the measures envisaged. The action plan includes the following measures: -       creation of an inter-ministerial commission to identify the best means of finalising the property restitution process; -       amendment of the legislation on restitution of nationalised property to simplify the process, to make it more effective and to accelerate it; -       approval by Parliament of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 81/2007 on speeding up the procedure for awarding compensation; -       organisation of talks every three months with associations of former owners and representatives of civil society. In their complementary information, the authorities indicated that Parliament had approved the Emergency Ordinance with some amendments, by Law No. 142 of 12/07/2010. The amendments are expected to facilitate the listing the Property Fund on the Bucharest Stock Exchange by 22/12/2010. Thus, the requirement of a public bid prior to the listing has been lifted in respect of the Property Fund. In addition, the authorities indicated that a working party had been established in March 2010 made up of representatives of the National Agency for Property Restitution, the Finance and Justice Ministries, other relevant ministries and authorities and the Property Fund. Some 22 amendments to the restitution laws were proposed and are currently being examined. These amendments aim to ensure, inter alia, that restitution claims are dealt with in a reasonable time, by setting strict time-limits for all stages of administrative proceedings and administrative sanctions for inobservance of such time-limits. The working party proposed an increase in staff assigned to restitution-related activities. The authorities also provided statistical data on the current progress of the compensation process (see “Stock-taking on restitution of nationalised properties” above). • Assessment: At the 1086th meeting (March 2010), the Deputies noted with interest the action plan provided by the Romanian authorities and invited them to submit a projected calendar for the adoption of the measures envisaged. Since then the authorities have created a working party assigned to propose legislative amendments to make the restitution and compensation process more efficient. Some of its proposals, for instance those setting strict time-limits for all stages of administrative proceedings and increasing staff assigned to the restitution and compensation procedure should be welcomed. As regards possible further amendments to the existing legislative framework, reference should be made also to the indications given by the European Court in the pilot judgment Maria Atanasiu and others (see above). Although this judgment is not yet final it is worth mentioning that the Court considered, among other things that: -       “an overhaul of the legislation in order to create clear and simplified rules of procedure would make the compensation scheme more predictable in its application compared with the present system”, the governing provisions of which are contained in a number of different laws, ordinances and decrees; -        “setting a cap on compensation awards and paying them in instalments over a longer period might also help to strike a fair balance between the interests of former owners and the general interest of the community” (§235 of the judgment). • For the time being, it is urgent that the authorities indicate a provisional calendar for the steps foreseen in their action plan, in particular for the work of the interdepartmental commission and of the working party created in 2010 to propose the necessary amendments to the restitution mechanism. Moreover, the additional steps made towards having the Property Fund floated on the stock exchange, which is expected to be achieved by 22/12/2010 should also be welcomed. The authorities are invited to provide additional information in this respect, as well as their assessment of the capacity of the current stock of shares to cover the pending claims for compensation. In addition, the authorities are invited to supplement the statistical data already provided on the progress of the restitution and compensation process (see above). This issue will be dealt with through bilateral consultations. Finally, it should be recalled that information is also expected on measures taken or envisaged to address the issue of lack of compensation for the period between the recognition of the claimants’ ownership right or right to compensation and the effective enforcement of such rights (see, among others, the judgment in the Porteanu case, §34). 6) Submissions under Rule 9§2: On 4/01/2010 and on 20/09/2010, four NGOs (Association française pour la Défense du Droit de Propriété en Roumanie, Asociaţia pentru Proprietatea Privată APP, Asociaţia Proprietarilor Deposedaţi Abuziv de Stat APDAS et Restitution Rumänien – ResRo) presented a critical assessment of the implementation of the measures taken by the Romanian authorities to abide by the judgments given in these cases. The Rule 9 communications, and the responses of the Romanian authorities, are available on the Committee of Ministers’ website (DH-DD(2010)37 and DH-DD(2010)541). 7) Other violations: With respect to violations relating to excessive length of proceedings, quashing final court decisions and the failure of the domestic courts to address decisive arguments brought by the applicants, the cases concerned present similarities respectively to the Nicolau group of cases (1295/02, 1115th meeting, June 2011), the Brumărescu case (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90) and Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu (60868/00 Section 6.1). 8) Publication and dissemination: The judgments of the European Court in the Strãin, Pãduraru and Porteanu cases were published in the Official Journal and disseminated. The Deputies, 1.             recalled that the questions raised in these cases concern a large-scale systemic problem, due to the dysfunctions of the Romanian system of restitution or compensation in respect of property nationalised during the Communist period; 2.             recalled that this finding has been confirmed by the European Court in several judgments in which it stated that the respondent state must guarantee, by appropriate legal and administrative measures, the effective implementation of the right to restitution, be it in kind or by award of compensation;   3.             also noted that, on 12 October 2010, the Court delivered a pilot judgment, which is not yet final, in the Maria Atanasiu and others case, stating that the Romanian state must take such measures of redress within 18 months from the date on which the judgment becomes final and decided to adjourn the examination of all similar applications during that period; 4.             recalled in this context that the Romanian authorities submitted an action plan for the execution of these judgments, in February 2010, as well as supplementary information, in September 2010; 5.             noted with interest among the measures taken the creation of a working group the task of which is to propose amendments to the legislation to render the restitution and compensation process more effective; noted in this respect that the Court stated in the pilot judgment that among other things “setting a cap on compensation awards and paying them in instalments over a longer period might also help to strike a fair balance between the interests of former owners and the general interest of the community” (§235 of the judgment); 6.             called on the Romanian authorities to set urgently a provisional calendar for the implementation of the various stages specified in the action plan and to keep the Committee informed of the progress made and in particular with the legal reforms envisaged; 7.             underlined in addition that in order to be able to assess the relevance of the measures proposed by the authorities, it is important to have a as precise and comprehensive report as possible on the progress of the compensation process for owners whose property rights have been prejudiced and on the number of claimants yet to be compensated; invited the authorities to supplement the information already submitted on this issue; 8.             recalled, moreover, that information is also awaited on the current situation of a number of applicants; 9.             decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH), in the light of additional information to be provided on general and individual measures.

- 240 affaires concernant l’absence de restitution ou d’indemnisation pour des biens nationalisés (Voir Annexe pour la liste d’affaires dans le groupe Străin) Les violations de la Convention que la Cour européenne a constatées dans ces affaires trouvent leur origine dans un important problème systémique tenant à l’inefficacité du mécanisme mis en place en Roumanie après 1989 afin de permettre la restitution ou l’indemnisation pour les propriétés nationalisées pendant le régime communiste. I Résumé introductif des affaires Une première série d’affaires concerne la vente des immeubles nationalisés par l’Etat aux locataires sans octroi d’indemnisation aux propriétaires légitimes, en dépit du constat des tribunaux internes entre 1993 et 2006 que les actes de nationalisation étaient illégaux (violations de l’article 1 du Protocole nº 1, voir l’affaire Străin et autres, arrêt du 21/07/2005). Une deuxième série d’affaires concerne le retard ou la non-exécution par les autorités administratives des décisions judiciaires ou administratives prononcées entre 1991 et 2006, ordonnant la restitution des biens nationalisés et/ou le paiement d’une indemnisation à défaut de telle restitution (violations de l’article 1 du Protocole nº 1 et/ou de l’article 6§1, voir l’affaire Popescu Sabin, arrêt du 02/03/2004). Certaines affaires concernent également la durée excessive des procédures engagées par les requérants pour obtenir la restitution des biens en question, l’annulation des décisions définitives de justice à la suite de pourvois en annulation formés par le procureur général ou l’omission des juridictions internes d’examiner des moyens décisifs soulevés par le requérants (violations de l’article 6§1). II Constats de la Cour en vertu de l’article 46 La Cour européenne a relevé dans plusieurs affaires que les violations constatées étaient de nature systémique et qu’elles résultaient d’une défaillance dans l’ordre juridique et la pratique administrative roumains (voir les arrêts Viaşu, Faimblat et Katz, rendus en 2008 et 2009). Se fondant sur la Résolution du Comité des Ministres Res(2004)3 et sur sa Recommandation Rec(2004)6, la Cour européenne a indiqué les mesures qu’elle estimait adéquates pour remédier au problème systémique identifié. Ainsi, elle a considéré que les autorités devaient garantir par des mesures légales et administratives appropriées la réalisation effective et rapide du droit à la restitution ou à l’indemnisation, conformément aux principes découlant de l’article 1 du Protocole nº 1 et de sa jurisprudence. Ces objectifs pourraient être atteints, par exemple, par l’amendement du mécanisme de restitution actuel et la mise en place d’urgence de procédures simplifiées et efficaces, fondées sur des mesures législatives et règlementaires aptes à prendre en considération les différents intérêts en jeu (voir l’arrêt Viaşu, §83 et pour plus de détails, les arrêts Faimblat, §§53-54 et Katz §35). III Procédure d’arrêt pilote Dans un arrêt pilote rendu le 12/10/2010 dans l’affaire Maria Atanasiu et autres (30767/05), qui n’est pas encore définitif, la Cour a relevé que l’inefficacité du mécanisme de restitution et d’indemnisation continue de soulever un problème récurrent et à grande échelle en Roumanie. La Cour a donné des précisions supplémentaires sur les causes des problèmes et a suggéré le type de mesures pouvant permettre de résoudre ce problème systémique. La Cour a précisé que des mesures aptes à offrir un redressement adéquat à l’ensemble des personnes affectées par les lois de restitution doivent être adoptées dans un délai de 18 mois à compter de la date à laquelle l’arrêt pilote deviendra définitif. La Cour a ajourné pour la même période l'examen de toutes les requêtes résultant de la même problématique générale. Mesures de caractère individuel : Dans certaines affaires, la Cour européenne a ordonné la restitution des biens en question / l’attribution des biens équivalents aux requérants ou le paiement d’une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice matériel correspondant à la valeur marchande des biens, dans un délai de trois mois à partir du moment où ses arrêts sont devenus définitifs. Dans d’autres affaires, la Cour européenne a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice matériel correspondant à la valeur marchande des biens en question ou au montant fixé par les décisions administratives ou judiciaires internes. Dans un nombre réduit d’affaires, la Cour européenne a enjoint aux autorités internes de fixer et de payer le montant de l’indemnisation due aux requérants. Dans quelques affaires, la Cour européenne a réservé la question de l’application de l’article 41. Enfin, dans la plupart des affaires, la Cour européenne a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage moral. • Des informations sont attendues sur la situation actuelle des requérants dans un certain nombre d’affaires, en particulier sur la question de savoir si leurs biens leur ont été restitués ou s’ils se sont vu verser la satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage matériel. Mesures générales : 1) Le cadre législatif avant 2005 : Après 1989, le Parlement roumain a adopté une série de lois sur la restitution des biens nationalisés pendant le régime Communiste. La Cour européenne a noté à cet égard que les amendements législatifs répétés au mécanisme de restitution et d’indemnisation ont été à l’origine des difficultés organisationnelles auxquelles les autorités se sont heurtées dans ce processus. Elle a également noté que les amendements se sont avérés inefficaces en pratique et qu’ils ont généré une pratique judiciaire incohérente et un climat général d’incertitude juridique (voir, par exemple §§94 et suiv. de l’arrêt Păduraru). Il convient de noter en particulier que le champ d’application de la première série de lois adoptées entre 1991 et 1997 a été par la suite élargi en 2000-2001 s’agissant des personnes qui pouvaient demander la restitution en nature des immeubles à usage d’habitation, et des surfaces de terrain qui pouvaient être restituées. Le plafonnement des indemnisations prévu à l’origine à l’égard des biens qui ne pouvaient pas être restitués, a été supprimé. Par ailleurs, les règlements successifs ont modifié à plusieurs reprises les délais pour déposer des demandes de restitution. 2) Le mécanisme de restitution et d’indemnisation en vertu de la loi nº 247/2005 : Cette loi a modifié de manière substantielle les lois de restitution existantes, en particulier en mettant en place une procédure administrative unique pour les demandes d’indemnisation, applicable à l’égard de toutes les propriétés concernées. Elle prévoit l’obligation de restitution en nature ou, si cela s’avère impossible, le paiement d’une indemnisation à hauteur de la valeur marchande de la propriété. De nouveaux délais ont été prévus pour soumettre des demandes de restitution ou d’indemnisation : 60 jours pour les terrains agricoles et 6 mois pour les propriétés immobilières ayant appartenu aux institutions religieuses et aux organisations des minorités nationales. a) Procédure prévue par la loi n° 247/2005 : Dans un premier temps, les demandes sont examinées par les autorités locales qui décident de la restitution en nature ou de l’octroi d’une indemnisation. Leurs décisions sont soumises au contrôle de légalité du préfet. Lorsque le préfet estime que la décision est légale, il est tenu de la transmettre à une autorité nouvellement créée – la Commission Centrale pour les Indemnisations (la « Commission Centrale »). Lorsque le préfet considère que la décision en question est illégale il peut saisir les tribunaux pour la faire invalider. Après le transfert du dossier, la Commission Centrale doit examiner la légalité du refus de restituer en nature puis transférer le dossier à des évaluateurs agréés qui détermineront le montant de l’indemnisation. Sur la base de leur rapport, la Commission Centrale peut émettre des certificats d’indemnisation ou bien restituer le dossier aux autorités locales pour complément. La loi nº 245/2005 ne prévoit pas de délai pour le traitement des dossiers par la Commission Centrale et ne fixe pas l’ordre du traitement des dossiers. Alors que dans un premier temps, les dossiers ont été traités de manière aléatoire, depuis septembre 2008, la Commission Centrale a décidé de les traiter dans l’ordre de leur enregistrement. b) Le mécanisme de compensation prévu par la loi n° 247/2005 : Les ayants droit peuvent être indemnisés sous forme de participation, en tant qu'actionnaires, dans un fonds commun de placement érigé en société roumaine anonyme (S.A.), enregistré au registre des sociétés de Bucarest le 29/12/2005 (Proprietatea, voir http://www.fondulproprietatea.ro/en/). La Cour européenne a note avec intérêt que la loi n° 247/2005 applique les principes formulés dans la jurisprudence internationale associés aux expropriations illégales ou de facto. Cependant, la Cour européenne a constaté à plusieurs reprises que ce fonds (le « Fonds Proprietatea ») n'était pas encore opérationnel au point d'être effectivement capable de fournir aux requérants des indemnisations. De plus, la loi n° 247/2005 ne tient pas compte du préjudice subi du fait de l'absence prolongée d’indemnisation. c) Amélioration du mécanisme de compensation : L'ordonnance du gouvernement n° 81/2007 visant à améliorer et accélérer la procédure d’indemnisation pour les biens nationalisés, prévoyait qu'à partir du 1/10/2007, les demandeurs qui bénéficiaient de titres compensatoires avaient le choix entre recevoir une partie de l’indemnisation en liquide (dans la limite de 500 000 RON) et le restant en actions au Fonds Proprietatea, ou recevoir la totalité du montant de l’indemnisation en actions. Les compensations monétaires inférieures à 250 000 RON devaient être payées en un versement, dans un délai d’un an à compter de la date de l’émission du titre de paiement. Les montants entre 250 000 et 500 000 RON devaient être payés en deux versements sur une période de deux ans. Au 1/02/2008, 2 440 demandes de compensation monétaire avaient été enregistrées, dont 855 finalisées (la somme totale des indemnisations payées s'élevant à 72 000 000 RON). L’ordonnance d’urgence du gouvernement n° 62 du 30/06/2010 a suspendu le paiement des compensations monétaires pour une période de deux ans afin d’assurer l’équilibre budgétaire. Pendant cette période, les titres compensatoires peuvent être convertis uniquement en actions. S’agissant du Fonds Proprietatea, il convient de noter que ses actionnaires ont désigné l’administrateur du Fonds en juillet 2010. Le Fonds n’a toujours pas été coté en bourse mais le 18/05/2010, son enregistrement a été demandé à la Commission Nationale des valeurs Mobilières, ce qui constitue un premier pas vers la cotation. Par ailleurs, en vertu de l’arrêté du Gouvernement n° 1581/2008, le transfert d’actions au Fonds entre les actionnaires ou vers des tiers est permis. Depuis le 1/11/2007, le Fonds Proprietatea distribue des dividendes aux actionnaires figurant dans son Registre des actionnaires. Le 11/10/2010, le Fonds Proprietatea a commencé à distribuer à ses actionnaires les dividendes pour 2008 et 2009. d) Mécanisme des sanctions : La loi n° 247/2005, telle que modifiée par l’ordonnance du Gouvernement n° 209/2005 (approuvée par la loi n° 263/2006) prévoit un mécanisme de contrôle pour la mise à exécution des décisions en matière de restitution. Ainsi, un organe spécial de contrôle au sein de l’Autorité nationale pour la restitution des propriétés peut exercer un contrôle administratif et appliquer des sanctions à l’égard des autorités locales impliquées dans le processus de restitution. Dans les huit premiers mois de l’année 2006, cet organisme a effectué plus de 300 contrôles et a imposé des sanctions à l’égard de plus de 6% des maires en exercice en Roumanie. Le montant des amendes infligées s’élève à 1 330 000 RON (380 000 euros). 3) La jurisprudence de la Haute Cour de cassation et de justice (« HCCJ ») : la HCCJ a jugé que la procédure prévue par la loi n° 247/2005 ne s’appliquait pas aux demandes de restitution ou d’indemnisation déjà tranchées par les autorités administratives locales en vertu de la loi n° 10/2001 (qui concerne toutes les propriétés autres que les terrains agricoles). Elle a estimé que les décisions prises à cet égard ne pouvaient plus être révoquées dès lors qu’elles avaient fait naître des droits patrimoniaux pour les personnes concernées (voir les arrêts nos 52/2007, 6723/2007 et 6812/2008). S’agissant des demandes transmises à la Commission centrale en vertu de la loi n° 247/2005, lesquelles n’avaient pas fait l’objet de décision, la HCCJ a estimé que les tribunaux ne pouvaient se substituer à la Commission centrale pour le calcul des indemnisations. La HCCJ a également jugé que, même si la Commission centrale n’était pas tenue par des délais légaux pour rendre ses décisions, elle devait se prononcer sur ces demandes dans un « délai raisonnable » au sens de l’article 6 de la Convention (voir entre autres l’arrêt nº 3857/2008). 4) Bilan en matière de restitution des biens nationalisés : le 22/09/2010, les autorités ont fourni des données statistiques sur les demandes de restitution et/ou d’indemnisation introduites en vertu d’une partie des lois de restitution. Cependant, dans la mesure où les données fournies sont partielles, elles ne permettent pas dégager une vision claire de la situation d’ensemble et demandent donc à être complétées. Les autorités ont par ailleurs fourni une estimation de la valeur totale des indemnisations qu’elles considèrent avoir à payer en vertu des lois de restitutions susmentionnées, qui s’élève à environ 21 milliards d’euros, alors que le PNB de la Roumanie pour l’année 2009 a été d’environ 120 milliards d’euros. 5) Le plan d’action présenté par les autorités : le 25/02/2010, suite à la décision du Comité des Ministres lors de la 1059e réunion (juin 2009), les autorités ont présenté un plan d’action pour l’exécution de ces arrêts. Le 22/09/2010, des informations supplémentaires ont été présentées à l’égard des mesures envisagées. Le plan d’action comprend les mesures suivantes : -       la création d’une commission interministérielle dont la mission est d’identifier les meilleurs moyens de finaliser le processus de restitution ; -       la modification de la législation sur la restitution des biens nationalisés afin de simplifier le processus, de le rendre plus efficace et de l’accélérer ; -       l’approbation par le Parlement de l’ordonnance d’urgence du gouvernement n° 81/2007 sur l’accélération de la procédure pour l’octroi d’indemnisations ; -       l’organisation de consultations trimestrielles avec des associations des anciens propriétaires et des représentants de la société civile. Dans leurs observations complémentaires, les autorités ont précisé que le Parlement avait approuvé l’ordonnance d’urgence susmentionnée avec certains amendements par la loi n° 142 du 12/07/2010. Les amendements apportés sont censés faciliter la cotation du Fonds Proprietatea à la Bourse de valeurs mobilières de Bucarest avant le 22/12/2010. Ainsi, l’exigence d’une offre publique préalable à la cotation a été supprimée à l’égard du Fonds Proprietatea. Par ailleurs, les autorités ont précisé qu’un groupe de travail constitué de représentants de l’Agence nationale pour la restitution des propriétés, des Ministères des Finances et de la Justice, des autres ministères impliqués et du Fonds Proprietatea a été mis en place. Environ 22 amendements aux lois de restitution ont été proposés et sont actuellement examinés. Ces amendements ont pour objectif d’assurer, entre autres, que les demandes de restitution soient traitées dans des délais raisonnables, en fixant des délais stricts pour tous les stades de la procédure administrative ainsi que des sanctions pour l’inobservation de tels délais. Le groupe de travail a proposé d’accroitre le personnel impliqué dans des activités liées à la restitution. Les autorités ont également fourni des statistiques sur le progrès du processus d’indemnisation (voir « Bilan en matière de restitution des biens nationalisés » ci-dessus). • Evaluation : Lors de la 1086e réunion (mars 2010), les Délégués ont pris note avec intérêt du plan d’action soumis par les autorités roumaines et les ont invitées à fournir un calendrier prévisionnel pour l’adoption des mesures envisagées. Depuis, les autorités ont mis en place un groupe de travail dont la tâche est de proposer des amendements législatifs afin de rendre plus efficace le processus de restitution et d’indemnisation. Il convient de se féliciter de certaines de ses propositions, comme par exemple celle d’imposer des délais stricts pour tous les stades de la procédure administrative et celle d’accroitre le personnel impliqué dans la procédure de restitution et d’indemnisation. S’agissant des éventuels amendements à la législation existante, il importe de faire référence aux indications données par la Cour européenne dans l’arrêt pilote Maria Atanasiu et autres (voir ci-dessus). Bien que cet arrêt ne soit pas encore définitif, il importe de mentionner que la Cour a constaté, entre autres, que : -          « la refonte de la législation, aboutissant à des règles de procédure claires et simplifiées, rendrait le système d'indemnisation plus prévisible dans son application, à la différence du système actuel, dont les dispositions sont dispersées entre plusieurs lois, ordonnances et arrêtés. » ; -          « le plafonnement des indemnisations et leur échelonnement sur une plus longue période pourraient également représenter des mesures susceptibles de ménager un juste équilibre entre les intérêts des anciens propriétaires et l'intérêt général de la collectivité. » (§235 de l’arrêt). • Dans l’immédiat, il est urgent que les autorités indiquent un calendrier prévisionnel pour l’adoption des mesures préconisées dans leur plan d’action, en particulier pour les travaux de la commission interministérielle et du groupe de travail mis en place en 2010, dont l’objectif est de formuler des propositions sur les amendements nécessaires au mécanisme de restitution. Par ailleurs, les mesures supplémentaires prises afin de faire coter en bourse le Fonds Proprietatea, cotation attendue avant le 22/12/2010, devraient être également saluées. Les autorités sont invitées à fournir des informations supplémentaires sur ce point, de même que leur évaluation sur la capacité du stock actuel d’actions pour couvrir les demandes d’indemnisation pendantes. De surcroît, les autorités sont invitées à compléter les données statistiques déjà fournies sur la progression du processus de restitution et d’indemnisation. Cette question fera l’objet de consultations bilatérales. Enfin, il convient de rappeler que des informations sont également attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées en relation avec l'absence de compensation pour la période comprise entre la reconnaissance du droit à restitution où à indemnisation et la réalisation effective de ces droits (voir, par exemple, l'affaire Porteanu, § 34). 6) Communications en vertu de la règle 9§2: les 4/01/2010 et 20/09/2010, quatre ONG (Association Française pour la Défense du Droit de Propriété en Roumanie, Asociaţia pentru Proprietatea Privată APP, Asociaţia Proprietarilor Deposedaţi Abuziv de Stat APDAS et Interessenvertretung Restitution Rumänien - ResRo) ont présenté une évaluation critique des mesures prises par les autorités roumaines pour se conformer aux arrêts rendus dans ces affaires. Les communications en vertu de la règle 9 et la réponse des autorités roumaines sont disponibles sur le site internet du Comité des Ministres : DH-DD(2010)37 et à DH-DD(2010)541. 7) Autres violations: S’agissant des violations liées à la durée excessive des procédures, l’annulation des décisions définitives de justice et l’omission des juridictions d’examiner des moyens décisifs soulevés par les requérants, les affaires en question sont à rapprocher respectivement du groupe d’affaires Nicolau (1295/02, 1115e réunion, juin 2011), de l’affaire Brumărescu (Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)90) et de l’affaire Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu (60868/00, rubrique 6.1). 8) Publication et diffusion: Les arrêts de la Cour européenne dans les affaires Străin, Păduraru et Porteanu ont été publiés au Journal Officiel et diffusés. Les Délégués, 1.             rappellent que les questions soulevées dans ces affaires ont trait à un problème systémique à grande échelle dû au dysfonctionnement du système roumain de restitution ou d'indemnisation de biens nationalisés pendant la période communiste ; 2.             rappellent que ce constat a été confirmé par la Cour européenne dans plusieurs arrêts dans lesquels elle a dit que l’Etat défendeur devait garantir par des mesures légales et administratives appropriées la réalisation effective du droit à restitution, qu’il s’agisse d’une restitution en nature ou de l’octroi d’une indemnité ;   3.             notent, en outre, que, le 12 octobre 2010, la Cour a rendu un arrêt pilote dans l’affaire Maria Atanasiu et autres, qui n’est pas encore définitif, dans lequel elle a dit que l’Etat roumain devait prendre de telles mesures de redressement dans un délai de 18 mois à compter de la date à laquelle l’arrêt deviendra définitif et a décidé d’ajourner l’examen de toutes les requêtes similaires pendant cette période ; 4.             rappellent, dans ce contexte, que les autorités roumaines ont soumis un plan d’action pour l’exécution de ces arrêts, en février 2010, ainsi que des informations complémentaires, en septembre 2010 ; 5.             notent avec intérêt, parmi les mesures prises, la mise en place d’un groupe de travail dont la tâche est de proposer des amendements législatifs afin de rendre plus efficace le processus de restitution et d’indemnisation ; relèvent à cet égard que la Cour a dit dans l’arrêt pilote, entre autres, que « le plafonnement des indemnisations et leur échelonnement sur une plus longue période pourraient également représenter des mesures susceptibles de ménager un juste équilibre entre les intérêts des anciens propriétaires et l'intérêt général de la collectivité. » (§235 de l’arrêt) ; 6.             appellent les autorités roumaines à établir d’urgence un calendrier prévisionnel pour la mise en œuvre des différentes étapes prévues dans le plan d’action et de tenir le Comité informé des progrès accomplis, s’agissant en particulier des reformes législatives envisagées ;  7.             soulignent, en outre, qu’afin d’être en mesure d’évaluer la pertinence des mesures proposées par les autorités, il est important de disposer d’un état des lieux aussi précis et exhaustif que possible de l’état d’avancement du processus d’indemnisation des propriétaires lésés et du nombre de demandeurs encore à satisfaire ; invitent les autorités roumaines à compléter les informations déjà fournies sur ce point ; 8.             rappellent, en outre, que des informations sont également attendues sur la situation actuelle d’un certain nombre de requérants ;  9.             décident de reprendre l'examen de ces points lors de leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière d’informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures générales et individuelles.

1477/02            SC Pilot Services S.A. Constanţa, judgment of 03/06/2008, final on 03/09/2008 and of 22/09/2009, final on 22/12/2009[71]

26985/03           Burghelea, arrêt du 27/01/2009, définitif le 27/04/2009, rectifié le 24/02/2010

L'affaire concerne le non-respect du droit de propriété de la requérante en raison de l’occupation de son terrain par les autorités, sans accord préalable sur les conditions de transfert de propriété ni indemnisation, dans le cadre d’un projet de construction d’une centrale hydroélectrique (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

La Cour européenne a considéré que les autorités n’avaient pas respecté les règles régissant l’expropriation en bonne et due forme, sans offrir au préalable une indemnisation à la requérante et que, dès lors, l’ingérence dans le droit de celle-ci n’avait pas été compatible avec le principe de légalité.

• Aucune information n’a été fournie par les autorités à ce jour.

*30390/02         Stancu, judgment of 29/04/2008, final on 29/07/2008[72]

Cases concerning failure or substantial delay

by the administration in enforcing final judicial decisions:

- 10 cases mainly concerning late enforcement of final judicial decisions ordering the applicants' reinstatement in their posts in public bodies and payment of salary arrears for the period they were unemployed[73]

23878/02           Strungariu, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

35935/02           Cone, judgment of 24/06/2008, final on 24/09/2008

6098/03            Durdan, judgment of 26/04/2007, final on 24/09/2007

23657/03           Miclici, judgment of 20/12/2007, final on 20/03/2008

5060/02            Mihaescu, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007

20763/03           Niţescu Vasile, judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009

32019/03           Ocneanu, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 29/10/2008

9555/03            Ştefanescu, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 11/01/2008

24464/03           Şurtea, judgment of 25/11/2008, final on 25/02/2009

29762/02           Teodorescu, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 29/10/2008

                       CM/Inf/DH(2007)33

                       - 11 cases concerning failure by domestic authorities to assist in enforcing final judicial decisions placing obligations on private third parties[74]

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

40067/06           Butan and Dragomir, judgment of 14/02/2008, final on 14/05/2008

40274/04           Chelu, judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010

6580/03            Ciocan and others, judgment of 09/12/2008, final on 09/03/2009

73706/01           Ion-Cetina and Ion, judgment of 14/02/2008, final on 14/05/2008

10395/02           Kocsis, judgment of 20/12/2007, final on 20/03/2008

67007/01           Neamţiu, judgment of 14/02/2008, final on 14/05/2008

25111/02           Negulescu Elena, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

24724/03           Oprea Constantin, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 08/02/2008

22626/02          Schrepler, judgment of 15/03/2007, final on 15/06/2007

40162/02           Vasile, judgment of 29/04/2008, final on 29/07/2008

                        CM/Inf/DH(2007)33

- 21 cases concerning late enforcement of, or failure to enforce final judicial decisions by public institutions[75]

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

27444/03           Babei and Clucerescu, judgment of 23/06/2009, final on 23/09/2009

37380/03           Balcan, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 29/10/2008

37805/05           Costăchescu, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

36297/02           Darnai, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 10/05/2010

25765/04           Delca, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 06/07/2009

2456/05+          Ghiţoi and others, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

13386/02           Moldoveanu, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 29/10/2008

67344/01+         Musteaţă and others, judgment of 06/10/2009, final on 06/01/2010

26004/03           Niţescu, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 24/06/2009

1486/02            Orha, judgments of 12/10/2006, final on 12/01/2007 and of 04/11/2008 - Friendly settlement

24714/03           Paicu, judgment of 25/11/2008, final on 25/02/2009

5050/02            Pântea Elisabeta, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 15/09/2006

34860/02           Piştireanu, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 30/12/2008

12235/05+         Pop Iacob and others, judgment of 02/03/2010, final on 02/06/2010

1690/05            Popa Aurelia, judgment of 26/01/2010, final on 26/04/2010

29268/03           S.C. Ghepardul S.R.L., judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009

35877/05           S.C. Prodcomexim S.R.L., judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 27/01/2010

28333/02          SC Ruxandra Trading SRL, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 12/10/2007 and of 02/12/2008, final on 02/03/2009

40263/05           Străchinaru, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 21/05/2008

35676/07           Teodor and Constantinescu, judgment of 02/03/2010, final on 02/06/2010

                        CM/Inf/DH(2007)33

20294/02           Drăculet, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 31/03/2008 and of 05/02/2009, final on 05/05/2009[76]

- 1 case against Romania and 1 case against Hungary and Romania /

  1 affaire contre la Roumanie et 1 affaire contre la Hongrie et la Roumanie

71099/01          Monory, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 05/07/2005

7198/04            Iosub Caras, judgment of 27/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006

These cases concern questions related to the application by the Romanian authorities of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (violations of Article 8).

In the Monory case, the European Court condemned the way in which the Romanian authorities dealt with the applicant's request for the return to Hungary of his daughter (nearly 4 years old), who had been kept in Romania without the applicant's consent by his wife. The request for the return of the child lodged by the applicant in January 1999 under the 1980 Hague Convention was eventually rejected by the Oradea Court of Appeal in February 2000. The Romanian courts found in particular that the retention of the child by her mother was not unlawful since the applicant did not have exclusive custody rights. Furthermore, they noted that the child had already been integrated into her new environment. The European Court found that the Romanian authorities had failed to make adequate and effective efforts to assist the applicant in his attempt to secure the child's return in that:

-           they failed to take all provisional measures, including extra-judicial measures, which might have helped prevent further harm to the child or prejudice to the interested parties in accordance with Article 7 of The Hague Convention.

-           the courts wrongly interpreted The Hague Convention as not being applicable to the present case, in spite of its obvious meaning which transpires from its very text, its Explanatory Report and from the recognised common practice of other European states;

-           the courts failed to respond to the urgency of the situation, letting more than twelve months pass before adopting the final decision rejecting the applicant's request while indicating that the child had adapted to her new environment;

The Monory case also concerns the excessive length of the divorce and child custody proceedings before the Hungarian courts (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings were brought by the applicant on 28/04/1999 and ended on 29/10/2003, when the Vác District Court declared the couple's divorce and granted the mother custody of the child.

In the Iosub Caras case, in November 2001 the Romanian Ministry of Justice received a request under The Hague Convention for the return of the applicant's child. The applicant claimed that his wife was wrongfully retaining their daughter in Romania, without his consent. In January 2002, the Ministry of Justice, acting as the Central Authority for the purpose of The Hague Convention, instituted proceedings on behalf of the applicant for the return of the child. The request was rejected in a final decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal in June 2003. The court noted, inter alia, that, since the introduction of the proceedings under The Hague Convention, another Romanian court, in a final decision of 18/09/2002, had ruled the divorce of the parents and had granted sole custody of the child to the mother.

The European Court concluded that the Romanian authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligations under Article 8 on the following grounds:

-           that, by failing to inform the divorce courts of the existence of The Hague proceedings, the authorities (in particular the Ministry of Justice) deprived The Hague Convention of its very purpose, i.e. to prevent a decision on the merits of the rights to custody being taken in the state of refuge;

-           that the time taken by the courts to decide finally in this case (more than 18 months from the date of lodging the request for the return of the child to the date of final decision) failed to meet the urgency of the situation.

The European Court also expressed its concern that the domestic courts, when ruling on The Hague proceedings, based their judgment, among other arguments, on the fact that the custody rights had been decided on the merits while The Hague proceedings were still pending.

Individual Measures:

1) Monory case: As the child is currently living in Romania, the Romanian authorities were asked whether the applicant currently enjoyed visitation rights. By letter of 30/11/2005, the Romanian authorities indicated that the applicant took no step under Romanian law to exercise his visiting rights.

• Assessment: no other measure appears necessary.

2) Iosub Caras: the European Court noted that the national courts' refusal under The Hague Convention to order the return of the child, being also based on arguments which constitute an interpretation of the facts and evidence adduced in the case, did not appear to be arbitrary. The applicant was awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: no other measure appears necessary.

General Measures:

            1) Violations of Article 8:

- Need to respond to the urgency of the situation and to take appropriate provisional measures

Various information provided by the authorities, in particular related to provisional visiting rights, is being examined in the context of the Ignaccolo-Zenide case (Section 4.2).

- Proper application of the 1980 Hague Convention: According to Law No. 369/2004 on the implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention a single jurisdiction (the Bucharest Tribunal for children and family issues) has been established to deal with requests for the return of children under the 1980 Hague Convention. Further, study of the provisions and the application of Law No. 369/2004 is a part of the initial training of legal trainees in family law and “European Convention of Human Rights”. The application of Law No. 396/2004 is also a priority in continuous training

In June 2008 the authorities submitted statistical data and examples of the application of Law No. 369/2004 by domestic courts. According to these statistical data, 21 cases concerning the application of Law no. 369/2004 were registered with the Bucharest Tribunal – Civil Section III between 2005 and 2008. Of those cases, five were still pending at the end of May 2008. The authorities submitted copies of court decisions delivered in 15 cases. In four of these cases, the courts granted the action for return of the child and set time-limits for enforcement varying between one and three months. In two cases, the courts dismissed the action for return of the child as ill-founded. In two other cases which concerned visiting rights, the actions were successful and the court set visiting programmes. In one of these two cases, the court also ordered that the child should receive psychological therapy for three months. Six cases were resolved by the court on procedural grounds (such as waiver of the right of action, lack of locus standi of the plaintiff). Finally, one case concerns the return of a child to Romania.

Regarding the length of the proceedings in the cases in which the action for return of a child was successful, these varied between two and 10 months for two levels of jurisdiction. In the cases in which the action was dismissed, the length of proceedings was of 11 and 12 months respectively, also for two levels of jurisdiction.

Nineteen cases were registered with the Bucharest Tribunal – Civil Section IV, between 2006 and 2008, of which six were still pending at the end of May 2008. In six cases, the court delivered interim decisions taking note of the waiver of the right of action. The authorities submitted copies of court decisions delivered in five cases. In four of these the court granted the action for return of the child and set time-limits for enforcement varying between three weeks and a month. In one case (which later formed the object of the Raban case, in which the Court delivered a judgment on 26/10/2010, finding that Article 8 has not been violated), the court dismissed the action. Finally, one case concerned the return of a child to Romania, while another concerned a challenge to enforcement proceedings. The length of proceedings varied between two and nine months for one level of jurisdiction, with the exception of one case in which proceedings lasted for a year; in the Raban case, the proceedings lasted 11 months for two levels of jurisdiction.

Finally, 25 cases were registered with the Bucharest Tribunal – Civil Section V between 2004 and 2008. 23 of them have been solved by the end of May 2008, of which five were pending before the appellate court. The authorities submitted copies of court decisions delivered in 16 cases. In three cases, the court granted the action for return of the child and set time-limits for enforcement of two and four weeks respectively. In six cases, the action was dismissed, while other four cases were decided on procedural grounds (such as waiver of the right of action, lack of jurisdiction). Finally, one case concerned the return of a child to Romania. The length of proceedings in which the court delivered decisions on the merits varied between two and 11 months, with the exception of one case in which the proceedings lasted one and a half years, for two levels of jurisdiction.  

• Assessment: under way.

            2) Publication and dissemination: The judgment in the Monory case has been translated and published in the Official Journal of Romania and on the Internet site of Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice (http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp). In addition, it was transmitted to the Bucharest court which is competent to apply the 1980 Hague Convention.

            3) Violation of Article 6§1 in the Monory case: This case presents similarities with the Tímár group (36186/97, Section 4.2). The judgment in the Monory case has been published on the website of the Hungarian Ministry of Justice (www.irm.hu) and in the human rights quarterly “Acta Humana”.

- 338 cases against the Russian Federation / 338 affaires contre la Fédération de Russie

15339/02+         Budayeva and others, judgment of 20/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008

The case concerns the Russian authorities' failure to protect the applicants' lives against the mudslide which devastated the town of Tyrnauz in July 2000, causing several deaths including that of the first applicant’s husband, and the lack of an adequate judicial response in this respect (violations of Article 2).

In the year preceding the mudslide, the authorities received a number of warnings from a specialised surveillance agency that should have made them aware of the increasing risks. Despite these warnings, the authorities failed to maintain the mud-protection engineering structures (the dam and the collector), to envisage any alternative land-planning policies in the area or to warn the public on the day of the disaster.

After this environmental disaster, no adequate judicial enquiry was carried out to establish the authorities’ responsibility. The inquest had been limited to the immediate causes of the deaths and had not examined questions of safety compliance or the authorities’ responsibility. Nor had those questions been the subject of any criminal, administrative or technical enquiry. In particular, no action had ever been taken to verify the numerous allegations concerning the inadequate maintenance of the mud-defence infrastructure or the authorities’ failure to set up a warning system.

The applicants’ claims for damages were effectively dismissed by the Russian courts for failing to demonstrate to what extent the State’s negligence had caused damage exceeding what had been inevitable in a natural disaster. That question could, however, only have been answered by a complex expert investigation and the establishment of facts to which only the authorities had access. The applicants had therefore been required to provide proof which was beyond their reach. In any event, the domestic courts had not made full use of their powers to establish the circumstances of the accident. In particular, they had not called witnesses or sought expert opinions. The courts’ reluctance to establish the facts was not justified in view of the evidence produced by the applicants, especially as it included reports which suggested that the applicants’ concerns were shared by certain officials.

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

General measures:

            1) Substantive aspect of Article 2: The European Court found that the authorities took no measures at all up to the day of the disaster to comply with their positive obligation to protect life even though they had been aware of the risks run by the population in a region prone to mudslides every year since 1937.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (1059th meeting, June 2009): On 6/01/2006 the government of the Russian Federation adopted a Federal Programme aimed at lowering the risks and reducing the consequences of emergencies of natural and industrial origins covering the period until the end of 2010. To implement it, a regional programme for the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya (RKB), was adopted by the Parliament of the RKB. The regional programme focuses not least on setting up an adequate legislative and administrative framework, improving monitoring and forecasting systems and developing the warning infrastructure.

• This information is being assessed.

            2) Lack of an appropriate judicial response:

• Clarification is still awaited as to measures taken or envisaged to ensure effective investigation capable of securing full accountability of state agents, having regard to the Court's finding concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation carried out at the domestic level following the mudslide.

            3) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was published in English in the Consultant Plus database, a summary of the judgment was published in Russian in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights. A copy of the judgment was sent to the President of the Supreme Court and sent out to lower courts.

It is planned to discuss the judgment at the forthcoming meetings of the Commission on Disaster Prevention and Relief of RKB and the regional branch of the Ministry of Disaster Relief.

- 2 cases concerning actions of the security forces in Ingushetia[77]

25385/04           Medova, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 05/06/2009

35052/04           Zabiyeva and others, judgment of 17/09/2009, final on 01/03/2010

49790/99           Trubnikov, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005[78]

4353/03            Tarariyeva, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2007

The case concerns the authorities' failure to protect the life of the applicant's son who died in the Khadyzhensk colony due to the lack of adequate medical follow up of his disease and post-operative care and defective medical assistance administered to him at the public hospital (violation of Article 2).

The European Court further found that the investigation into the death of the applicant's son was slow and its scope too restricted, leaving out many crucial aspects of the events. The applicant's right to effective participation in the investigation was not secured. Finally, after the acquittal of the suspect due to the poorly prepared evidentiary basis, the applicant was deprived of an accessible and effective civil-law remedy, either because a civil claim was barred by operation of law or because it had no chances of success in the light of the existing judicial practice (procedural violation of Article 2).

The case further concerns inhuman treatment inflicted on the applicant's son as a result of his handcuffing at the civilian hospital and the conditions of his transport in a prison van, which contributed to his suffering (violation of Article 3).

Individual measures: It results from the judgment that only the head of the surgery department of the public hospital was referred to a trial court in this case. For unspecified reasons the report of medical experts of 19/06/2003 which concluded to the defendant's guilt was rejected by the trial court and the defendant was consequently acquitted. The criminal proceedings against other doctors of the prison hospital and of the public hospital were discontinued by prosecutors on the ground that an alleged offence had not been committed.

• Information provided by the applicant: The applicant stated that she had lodged several applications with a number of competent authorities, in particular with a Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, but without success.

She indicated that on 25/05/2007 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Adyugeya Republic quashed the first-instance court's approval of the prosecutor' refusal to open criminal proceedings in respect of the doctors of the prison hospital and referred the case back to the first-instance court for a new examination. It would however appear that these proceedings were already pending when the European Court delivered its judgment.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The Russian authorities indicated that on 15/06/2007 the first-instance court quashed the prosecutor’s refusal to open criminal proceedings and invited the senior assistant to Prosecutor of the Adyugeya Republic to rectify the violations found. These violations were rectified by a decision of the Deputy Prosecutor of the Adyugeya Republic of 6/07/2007. By the same decision the Deputy Prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings against the doctors of the prison hospital on the ground that the alleged offence had not been committed.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities is being assessed.

General measures: On an unspecified date the judgment of the European Court was sent out to the Supreme Court, the General Prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of health and social development by the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court so that they might take measures within their competence and use it in their daily practice.

            1) Violation of Article 2 in relation to the lack of requisite medical care: see the Popov case (26853/04, Section 4.2)

            2) Procedural violation of Article 2 in relation to the civil claim for compensation: see the Khashiyev and other cases (57942/00, Section 4.3).

            3) Violation of Article 3 in relation to handcuffing of the applicant's son at the civilian hospital

The Russian authorities have indicated that there were no specific rules governing the situation of convicts in civil hospitals. The convicts and the penitentiary staff ensuring their protection are subject to the Criminal Code of Execution of Sentences, the Federal Law of 21/10/2005 on institutions and organs responsible for the execution of sentences involving deprivation of liberty as well as other departmental regulations, such as the joint Order of the Ministry of Health and of Ministry of Justice of 17/10/2005 N°640/190 on the organisation of medical care for persons serving their sentences and being detained on remand;

Order of the Ministry of justice of 15/02/2006 N°21-дсп, approving the “Instruction on security in penitentiary institutions”.

• The texts of the documents mentioned above would be particularly helpful.

            4) Violation of Article 3 in relation to transport of the applicant's son: It would appear that in this particular case the transport of the applicant’s son was ensured by the penitentiary institution.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities is being assessed.

            5) Publication and dissemination: The judgment was published in the Bulletin of the European Court (Russian edition), No 7, 2007. The judgment has been sent out to all relevant authorities.

32704/04           Vasilyev Denis, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to take measures needed to protect the applicant’s life after he had been assaulted by persons unknown (violation of Article 3).

The European Court noted that, undeniably, the police had been aware that the applicant was in a vulnerable and life-threatening position, having found him unconscious. Under Russian law, the police had a duty to assist all persons and especially victims of attacks; this duty was codified in detail in the relevant laws. The Convention also imposed the obligation on the state to protect the physical well-being of those who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being within the control of the authorities. The two officers who had found the applicant, however, had not examined him, had not called an ambulance, but instead had dragged him by the armpits although that had been contrary both to the law and to the most basic requirements of first-aid. As regards the police officers’ precipitate departure from the scene, the fact that there had existed an arrangement under which orders of private security co-ordinators took precedence over the orders of the duty officers at the police station, was found by the Court to be a flagrant perversion of priorities, as it had the effect of putting the protection of private property before that of the applicant’s life.

The case also concerns the lack of medical care provided to the applicant after his transfer to the Moscow City Hospital (violation of Article 3). The Court noted in this respect that the applicant had been left lying undressed and unconscious in a hospital corridor for almost two days without medical attention, the hospital having failed to carry out the most basic procedures provided for a new patient. The Court gave greater credence to the findings of the first medical study, as it had been conducted using the original medical file and by a medical panel working for the Ministry of Defence which, unlike the second panel affiliated to the Moscow authorities, had been an institution unrelated to both the hospital and the investigative authority. The case finally concerns the lack of effective investigation into the applicant’s assault (procedural violation of Article 3). The Court noted that local residents had informed the police immediately of the brutal attack on the applicant. Despite that, the police officers who had arrived at the scene had not drawn up any report or opened an inquiry into the circumstances in the days that followed. Furthermore, although criminal proceedings were ultimately brought, the prosecution authorities had themselves acknowledged that a number of major investigative steps had not been taken, such as reporting on the crime scene and interviewing neighbourhood residents. The responsibility for the investigation was transferred to a different police or prosecution authority at least three times and within five years no less than twelve decisions to discontinue criminal proceedings were issued, only to be subsequently set aside by supervising prosecutors.

The Court also concluded that there had been no effective investigation of the actions of the police or the medical negligence of hospital staff (two violations of Article 3). In particular, the Court held that the authorities had been somewhat late in opening criminal investigations of the applicant’s complaints, as these had been brought respectively six months and almost two years after the events. In addition, the investigation concerning the actions of the police had been incomplete and the prosecution had failed to collect the necessary evidence which had led to the collapse of the case against the police officers in court.

As regards the investigation of medical negligence, the investigative authorities had demonstrated determination to get rid of the case in a hasty manner; as a result, several investigators had been reprimanded or disciplined. In addition a crucial piece of evidence, the original medical record, had been lost making it impossible to determine whether the allegedly inadequate medical assistance had led to damage to his health.

The Court finally concluded that there was no effective remedy on account of a structural problem in the Russian legal system whereby a civil claim for damages has limited chances for success where criminal proceedings against state officials have been discontinued or ended in an acquittal (violation of Article 13).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

Noting that no information has been provided in this case, 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 their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH). / Notant qu'aucune information n'a été fournie dans cette affaire, 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 à leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH).

34393/03           Pitalev, judgment of 30/07/2009, final on 30/10/2009

The case concerns the poor conditions in which applicant was detained in a prison hospital where he was kept from 4/07/2003 to 12/09/2003, from 22/06/2004 to 9/07/2004 and from 19/11/2004 to 10/12/2004.

• At the 1078th meeting (March 2010), the Russian authorities provided preliminary information on the payment of just satisfaction and on the dissemination of the judgment.

26853/04          Popov, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006[79]

46468/06           Aleksanyan, judgment of 22/12/2008, final on 05/06/2009

The case concerns the inhuman and degrading treatment suffered by the applicant, a HIV-positive detainee, in that the authorities failed to take sufficient care of the applicant’ health (violation of Article 3). In violation of two interim measures indicated by the Court, the authorities failed to transfer him to a specialist medical institution and to allow his examination by a medical commission which would include doctors of his choice (violation of Article 34). The European Court stated that the applicant’s illness could not be treated in the condition of detention in remand. It also recalled that the proceedings against the applicant had been suspended and were not likely to be reopened in the foreseeable future. The Court concluded that the applicant’s continuous detention was inacceptable and that the Russian government was to replace detention on remand with other, reasonable and less stringent, measure of restraint, or with combination of such measures provided by Russian law (§240).

It appears that on 12/12/2008 the applicant was released on bail. It further appears that on 12/01/2009 he left the Moscow Town Hospital no. 60, a general clinic to which he had been placed on 8/02/2008.

• The confirmation of the applicant’s release is awaited.

The case also concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention due to the domestic court’s failure to address concrete facts concerning the applicant’s poor health or to consider alternative “preventive measures” and to justify his detention’s extension by relevant and sufficient reasons (violation of Article 5§3).

Finally the case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private home and correspondence on account of the searches carried out in the applicant’s premises (the applicant is a lawyer) due to the lack of proper reasoning and vagueness of the search warrant (violation of Article 8).

- 2 cases concerning medical treatment of the detainees suffering from tuberculosis

52058/99           Gorodnitchev, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

3267/03            Moskalyuk, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010

The Gorodnitchev case concerns first, inhuman treatment suffered by the applicant, who suffered from tuberculosis, due to the failure to provide care appropriate to his state of health after May 1998, particularly during his detention in October-November 2000 in a SHIZO (solitary confinement punishment cell). The Court established in this respect that he had been deprived of medical treatment and denied the diet prescribed by doctors during 24 days’ solitary confinement. It also noted that the nature of the treatment prescribed and the dosage of the medication prescribed were not mentioned in the applicant's file of (violation of Article 3). The European Court also found that the appearance of the applicant in handcuffs during the public hearings of 5/2/1999 and 22/2/1999, a measure that was not reasonably necessary to public safety or to the fair administration of justice, constituted degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

Finally, the European Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to be afforded a trial within a reasonable time since criminal proceedings in his case lasted four years and ten months, of which one year and seven months within the European Court’s jurisdiction, before two levels of jurisdiction (violation of Article 6§1).

The Moskalyuk case concerns degrading treatment suffered by the applicant from 23/07/2002 to 4/01/2003 due to the lack of adequate medical assistance for his tuberculosis, in remand prison No. IZ-77/1 in Moscow, in the medical correctional colony No. LIU-10 in the Omsk Region and during his transfer from Moscow to the Omsk Region and from the Omsk Region to the Kaluga Region (violations of Article 3).

The European Court found that despite the seriousness of the applicant's condition, the hospitals at the remand prison and the medical correctional colony failed to monitor his condition properly and discontinued his treatment for extended periods without sufficient medical indication.

Individual measures:

1) Gorodnitchev case: On 17/05/2001, the applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for assault resulting in death. The Russian authorities provided information to the effect that on 18/02/2002 the applicant finished serving his sentence and was released. He now lives in Novosibirsk and has access to medical care in a municipal hospital.

2) Moskalyuk case: It appears that the applicant has served his sentence and his tuberculosis has been cured.

General measures:

            1) Medical care and conditions of detention of persons suffering from tuberculosis: The case presents some similarities with that of Popov (26853/04, Section 4.2). According to a report of the Federal Service for the Protection of Customers' Rights and the Surveillance of Human Wellbeing, the situation with tuberculosis in Russia is difficult: 74.26 per 100,000 persons suffered from the disease in 2009. The Federal Service of Execution of Sentences reports that in 2010 about 14% tuberculosis-sufferers in Russia are currently deprived of their liberty.

• Information is awaited on measures taken to curb the spread of tuberculosis in places of detention.

            2) Use of handcuffs during the hearings in the Gorodnichev case: The judgment shows that the use of handcuffs was not compatible with defence rights guaranteed by Article 46 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (§ 104 of the judgment). Furthermore, the absence of grounds in the records justifying this measure was also noted by the Vice-President of the Supreme Court during the supervisory review procedure (id., § 107).

• Information is therefore awaited on measures taken or envisaged to guarantee the implementation of this article in a manner compatible with the Convention’s requirements as set forth in the judgment.

            3) Excessive duration of the criminal proceedings in the Gorodnichev case: This aspect is being examined in the context of the Smirnova group of cases (46133/99, Section 4.2).

4) Publication and dissemination: On 17/05/2008, the European court’s judgment in Gorodnitchev was sent to the Presidents of all regional courts. The judgment was also discussed at the collegial meeting of judges of the Novosibirsk Regional Court and other meetings of judges in the Region of Novosibirsk.

The Novosibirsk Regional Court also provided information to the effect that regular monitoring of compliance by courts with procedural time-limits for the examination of criminal cases by the district courts had been introduced. On 28/03/2008, the Prosecutor General’s office sent the judgment to all regional prosecutors and to the prosecutors in charge of control over the compliance with laws by penitentiary institutions.

On 21/03/2008 the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences sent the judgment to all its regional departments. The judgment was published in the Russian edition of the Bulletin of the European Court (N°9, 2007, pp.111-113).

Information about the judgment is available on the Ministry of justice website under the Section “European Court’s case-law” www.minjust.ru/ru/ECJ/precedent.

• Information is awaited on publication and dissemination of the judgment adopted in the Moskalyuk case.

35421/05           Mechenkov, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/07/2008

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicant due to the authorities’ failure to provide him with the minimum level of medical supervision for timely diagnosis and treatment of his hepatitis C while in detention (violation of Article 3).

From 1996 the applicant had been regularly given hepatotoxic anti-tuberculosis treatment, known to cause liver damage. The minimum level of medical supervision for the applicant’s condition could therefore have included regular blood tests for hepatitis, even if such tests had not been mandatory. Yet, it took the authorities eleven months to perform a blood test to confirm the diagnosis mentioned in the applicant’s medical records.

No antiviral treatment was proposed to the applicant on the ground of the absence of active hepatitis. However, no details were given as to by whom and in what circumstances such decision had been taken. The European Court also noted that the applicant was subject to blood monitoring and dynamic therapeutic supervision. Again, no details were provided as to the measures undertaken in the framework of this supervision. Finally, there was nothing to suggest that the applicant had ever been examined by a hepatologist, which would have been at least reasonable considering his hepatotoxic treatment for tuberculosis.

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to individual petition on account of the penitentiary authorities’ censorship in 2006 of his correspondence with the European Court (violation of Article 34).

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

According to the information provided by the Russian authorities, the applicant is no longer detained. He finished serving his sentence and was released on 27/10/2008. It would appear that on 1 and 3/09/2008 the applicant lodged two applications with the Oktybrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. In his first application, he alleged that officials of correctional facility IK-18 intentionally caused damage to his health. This application was transmitted by the district court to the prosecutor’s office of the Oktybrskiy district of Novosibirsk. In his second application, the applicant expressed his general dissatisfaction with the law-enforcement officials and with the staff of the correctional facility, without however giving other details. This application was returned to him by the district court which invited him to further specify his complaints.

• Information is awaited on the measures taken or envisaged by the authorities in relation to the applicant’s complaints.

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Popov case (26853/04, Section 4.2) in which the Committee is examining the current legal and regulatory framework governing medical assistance to persons serving sentences.

1) Violation of Article 3: The Russian authorities provided extensive information on the detainees’ access to medical care in the framework of the Popov case. This information is being assessed by the Secretariat.

2) Violation of Article 34: Article 91§2 of the Russian Code on Execution of Sentences of 1997 («Уголовно-исполнительный Кодекс РФ»), as amended on 8/12/2003, as well as Rule 53 of the Internal Regulations of Correctional Facilities adopted by Decree No. 205 of the Russian Ministry of Justice of 3/11/2005, provide that all detainees' incoming and outgoing correspondence is subject to censorship by the administration of the correctional facility. Correspondence with courts, prosecutors, penitentiary officials, the Ombudsman, the public monitoring board and the European Court is not subject to censorship.

However, in the present case, a violation of the applicant’s right to individual petition occurred notwithstanding the existence of these legal and regulatory provisions.

• Information is therefore awaited on additional measures taken or planned to secure the detainees’ right to individual petition (possibly through strengthening of officials’ responsibility for non-compliance with the provisions mentioned above).

            3) Publication and dissemination

• Information is awaited on the publication of the European court’s judgment and its dissemination to all authorities concerned, in particular to the relevant departments of the Federal Service for execution of sentences and of the General Prosecutor’s Office. Given the importance of the right to individual petition for the proper functioning of the Convention system, such dissemination to the departments of the Federal Service for execution of sentences should be accompanied by a circular letter of the Head of the Service drawing the attention of its staff to their obligation under the Convention and to the sanctions in case of non‑compliance.

The same measure may be envisaged by the Prosecutor General while disseminating the judgment to prosecutors in charge of the supervision of compliance with law and regulations in penitentiary institutions.

52697/99           Mikadze, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 12/11/2007

The case concerns the poor conditions under which the applicant was detained, in particular when he was punished by being placed in solitary confinement.

The European Court considered that during his detention in Orenburg Prison the applicant had been subjected to hardships of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and which amounted to inhuman treatment (violation of Article 3).

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

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Prosecutor General's Office, to the Interior Ministry, to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, to the Federal Service of Execution of Punishments and to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Privolzhskiy Federal District. It has also been disseminated among all regional courts of general jurisdiction, among regional and special prosecutors' offices and among the regional departments of the Federal Service of Execution of Punishments.

• Information is awaited on publication of the judgment and other measures aimed to prevention of further similar violations.

37213/02           Kantyrev, judgment of 21/06/2007, final on /01/2008[80]

63993/00           Romanov, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

The case concerns the poor conditions of the applicant's detention on remand in pre-trial detention facility IZ-48/2 “Butyrskiy”, also referred to as SIZO-2, in Moscow between 1999 and 2000. The European Court considered that these detention conditions amounted to degrading treatment, due in particular to severe prison overcrowding combined with the length of the period of detention under such conditions (violation of Article 3).

The case also concerns the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand (1 year, 5 months). The Court found that the detention was based solely on the seriousness of the alleged offence, i.e. the acquisition of drugs for personal consumption and possession, and that as such it could not justify the continued detention (violation of Article 5§3).

Finally, the case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in that, despite the numerous requests made by the applicant, the District Court failed to take any step to secure his attendance at the hearings on the ground that the detention facility did not transport sick detainees to court and the testimony of a mentally disturbed person could not be accepted as evidence.

The European Court considered that the applicant's presence at his counsel's side was essential to the fairness of the proceedings, since the District Court had to determine whether he had committed the offence he was charged with and assess his mental health at the relevant time. The applicant's participation to the hearings was particularly important in this case because the District Court was seised of two divergent expert opinions on the modalities of his medical care, which had an impact on his liberty (violation of Article 6§1 and §3c).

Individual measures: On 13/06/2006 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings pursuant to Article 413§4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (newly discovered circumstances, i.e. the European Court's judgment). His application was rejected by the Supreme Court on the ground that, by a court decision of 4/09/2003, the criminal proceedings in the applicant's case had been discontinued pursuant to an Amnesty Act of 26/05/2000 and he was no longer subject to any measure of compulsory medical treatment. The Supreme Court also noted that the European Court did not criticise this latter decision. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

On 24/10/2006, 26/03/2007 and 23/05/2007, the applicant's representative submitted her observations with respect to possible individual measures which might be required to erase all consequences of the violations found by the European Court. These observations have been transmitted to the Russian authorities for comments. The Secretariat also wrote to the applicant’s representative inviting her to specify the consequences of the violations still suffered by the applicant.

• Information is thus awaited on whether the applicant still bears any consequence following the criminal proceedings which were brought against him (e.g. criminal record).

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 3: This issue presents similarities with the Kalashnikov group of cases in which comprehensive general measures taken by the Russian authorities are being examined (Section 4.2). In addition, the Russian authorities indicated that on 21/04/2006 the alternate Director of the Federal Service for execution of sentences had issued letter No. 10/1-1046 to all heads of its subdivisions inviting them to take measures to eliminate the shortcomings pointed out by the European Court in its judgment. Their attention was in particular drawn to the sanitary norms and other obligations provided by Article 23 of the Federal Law of 15/07/1995 “On detention of persons suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence”.

The letter also instructs officials in charge of the protection of human rights within the Russian penitentiary system to inform the Federal Service for execution of sentences of the results of the measures taken through their annual reports.

• Information would be useful on the measures taken as a result of this instruction possibly together with examples of relevant extracts from the aforementioned reports.

• Measures to improve material conditions of detention in psychiatric hospitals: In 2007, 19 100 RUR were provided for the reconstruction of psychiatric hospital FGU IZ-77/2 in Moscow, which is currently under renovation. On 8/10/2007 244 persons were detained in the hospital, which has 275 places.

The Russian authorities indicated that, as a result of these measures, there are currently 5,54 sq. m per inmate in the Moscow psychiatric hospital FGU IZ-77/2 and its conditions of detention are closer to European standards. The level of medical care provided by the legislation is also guaranteed.

In order to improve the capacities of the medical institutions of the penitentiary system, a Special programme on prevention of and fight against socially important deceases for 2007-2011 was adopted by Government Regulation No. 280 of 10/05/2007. One of its sub-programmes is specifically dedicated to psychiatric deseases.

• Measures to improve access to medical care: The Russian authorities have indicated that medical care is provided to suspects, accused and convicted persons in accordance with the Order of the Ministry of Health and of the Ministry of Justice No640/190 of 17/10/2005.

• A copy of this Order would be useful.

The Russian authorities also indicate that persons with mental disorder may be transferred to psychiatric institutions which belong to the system of the Ministry of Health. During the third quarter of 2007, 69 persons were sent to psychiatric hospitals.

• More details are awaited on the rules governing the transfer of detainees suffering mental disorder to civil psychiatric hospitals (e.g. which authority is competent to decide whether a person should be transferred to a civil psychiatric hospital, etc.).

• Secretariat’s assessment: The measures taken and being taken so far by the Russian authorities are welcomed. However, to assess whether the current situation fully complies with the Convention’s requirements, more details would be useful. It is therefore proposed to clarify all these issues through bilateral consultations with the relevant Russian authorities. The Secretariat will shortly make this proposal in writing to the Russan delegation.

            2) Violation of Article 5§3: See the Klyakhin group (46082/99, Section 4.2).

            3) Violation of Article 6§1 and §3c: The new Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) entered into force in July 2002, after the events at issue. Its chapter 51 provides for particular rules specifying conditions in which measures of compulsory medical treatment may be decided by a judge. Article 441 only provides for the compulsory attendance of a lawyer (or the legal representative of the defendant, e.g. his or her parents, spouse, etc) at the hearing and offers the defendant the possibility to ask to appear in person but this latter issue is left to the court's discretion.

In this respect, the Russian authorities informed that there is an obligation upon courts to address this issue, in the light of the expert's conclusions, prior to the examination of the case notwithstanding the defendant's request. Thus, the authorities must ensure that the medical experts are asked, in the framework of their expertise, whether a defendant may attend the court hearing according to the guidelines of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union of 26/04/1984 No. 4 “On the judicial practice regarding the application, the modification and the revocation of the measures of compulsory medical treatment”.

The Russian authorities have also indicated that there is also an obligation upon judges to examine comprehensively all materials in relation to the defendant's request to participate personally to the hearing, without however specifying the relevant provision of the CCP.

It is also noted that Article 34 of the Law “On psychiatric help and guarantees of citizens' rights when undergoing psychiatric treatment” guarantees the fundamental right for the patient to take part personally in hearings concerning forcible hospitalisation. However, the Russian authorities indicated that this law did not apply in of criminal proceedings.

The attention of the Russian authorities was also drawn to the experience of other countries in solving similar issues (ex., Resolution ResDH(2004)74 adopted in the case of Pobornikoff v. Austria).

• The Russian authorities’ position: The Russian authorities considered that the current legislation makes it possible to prevent new, similar violations and that no further measures are thus needed.

• Secretariat’s assessment: It would appear that the current practice of the Russian courts consists in examining these issues in the absence of the person concerned. Moreover, the issue of the presence of the defendant is rarely raised and examined at the beginning of a hearing (in this respect, see for example the overview of the judicial practice on the applicability of compulsory medical treatment measures by the courts of the Lipezk region for 2004). Thus, to assess whether or not further measures are necessary, more recent examples of judicial practice concerning this issue in respect of other regions are awaited.

4) Publication and dissemination: By letter of 21/04/2006 No. 950-1/общ the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation sent the European Court's judgment to all courts, drawing their attention to the Court's findings and stressing in particular their obligation to fully examine all material related to the defendant's request.

The European Court's judgment was also sent out by letter of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation of 16/12/2006 No. 12-11663-03 to all prosecutors, inviting them to take into account the Court's findings in their supervision of compliance with the rights of persons who might be subjected to compulsory medical treatment.

24325/03           Generalov, judgment of 09/07/2009, final on 09/10/2009

The case mainly concerns the poor conditions of the applicant’s detention in a correctional facility between 24/08/2001 and 27/12/2002 (violation of Article 3). It further concerns the failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment by the prison warders (procedural violation of Article 3). It also concerns the judicial authorities’ refusal to accept the applicant’s claim for examination on grounds not provided by the Code of Civil Procedure (violation of Article 6).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

59261/00           Menesheva, judgment of 09/03/2006; final on 09/06/2006

The case concerns the ill-treatment (found by the European Court to amount to torture) inflicted on the applicant following her apprehension in February 1999 while she was kept for 20 hours at the Zheleznodorozhnyy District police station (violation of Article 3).

The applicant was regarded as a witness in the criminal proceedings initiated against her companion, but refused to let the police search her apartment without a warrant. She was accordingly arrested and taken to the police station for the administrative offence of violent resistance against the police.

The case also concerns the absence of any effective investigation into the applicant's allegations of torture. In this respect the European Court noted that the internal investigation was only opened nearly four years after the events and after the applicant had seised the European Court. After three years, the investigation had still failed to establish the material circumstances of the applicant's injuries (procedural violation of Article 3), depriving her of an effective remedy, including any claim for compensation (violation of Article 13).

The case furthermore concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant's apprehension for having allegedly resisted the police. The European Court noted in this respect that the true reason for her arrest and overnight detention was to force her to give information about her companion and surrender the keys to her flat (§ 82 of the judgment).

The Court further found that there had been no record of information about the apprehension, such as the date, time and location of detention, her name, the reasons for her arrest and the name of the arresting officer (violation of Article 5§1).

Finally, the European Court found that the five days' administrative detention imposed on the applicant to be unlawful as the judge at exercised his authority in manifest disregard of the procedural guarantees provided by the Convention (violation of Article 5§1), that there had been no adversarial proceedings as such and that even the appearances of a trial had been neglected (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: According to the order of the Prosecutor General of 3/03/2004, the Prosecutor's office of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District was given 30 days to complete the investigation under the supervision of the Prosecutor General (§ 42 of the judgment). However no information in this respect was available when the European Court delivered its judgment.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (April 2007): The domestic investigation was still ongoing.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of the investigation into the events at issue.

General measures: Certain issues have already been raised under other similar cases in which the Russian authorities were invited to present an action plan addressing:

-           ineffective investigations into allegations of torture against police officers and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (letter of 6/07/06 sent in the Mikheyev case, 77617/01, Section 4.2),

-           absence of arrest records (letter of 12/06/06 sent in the Fedotov case, 5140/02, Section 4.2).

The case also raises a number of new issues since the applicant's apprehension and detention were subject to the Code on Administrative Offences replaced by the new Code on 01/07/2002.

            1) Violations of Articles 3 (substantial) and 5§1 in relation with the administrative apprehension (zaderganie): The new Code provides that the maximum period of administrative arrest is 3 hours, which may be extended to 48 hours (after expiry of which the arrested person shall be brought before a judge) and a possibility of being assisted by a lawyer upon apprehension.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities has been assessed in the context of the Mikheyev group of cases. On 13/10/2010 the Secretariat sent a report which contains a detailed assessment of the current legislation and practices to the Russian authorities.

            2) Violations of Articles 5§1 and 6§1 in relation with the applicant's administrative detention (arrest): The new Code on Administrative Offences seems to be in line with the Convention's requirements since it provides a number of procedural guarantees for those facing administrative detention, e.g. clear time-limits for bringing the case to court, defendants' procedural rights and possibility of appealing decisions ordering such measure.

• It would however be useful to know whether any disciplinary or other proceedings may be brought against a judge who disregarded these procedural requirements, for instance the judge who ordered the applicant's administrative detention.

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

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

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant's arrest in June and July 2000 in Moscow, and his subsequent detention in the Izmaylovo Hotel and in Rostokino police station. The police arrested the applicant, whose name still appeared on a federal list of wanted persons even after charges against him had been dropped in the meantime (violation of Article 5§1).

The case also concerns the inhuman treatment suffered by the applicant during his detention on 6-7/072000 in Rostokino police station. The European Court noted in this context that the applicant had been detained overnight in a cell unfit for an overnight stay, without food or drink or unrestricted access to a toilet (substantive violation of Article 3). It also found that there had been no effective investigation into the applicant's complaints in this respect (procedural violation of Article 3).

Finally, the case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to compensation for his unlawful detention, his action for damages having been dismissed as unsubstantiated by domestic courts, despite abundant evidence to the contrary (violation of Article 5§5).

On 18/09/2001, the domestic court merely granted him damages in respect of the unlawfulness of the criminal proceedings, as the charges brought against him had been dropped. However this decision was still unenforced when the European Court delivered its judgment (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court held that the Russian authorities must ensure enforcement of this judgment within three months following the date upon which its own judgment became final.

Individual measures: The amounts due to the applicant as a compensation for his unlawful detention according to the domestic judgment of 18/09/2001, as supplemented by the judgment of 24/11/2004, were paid to him in June 2005.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 3: The question of unsatisfactory conditions of detention at police stations has to be addressed by the authorities to prevent new, similar violations. The authorities' attention is drawn in particular to the CPT report on administrative-detention cells in Moscow (see CPT/Inf(2003)30) referred to by the Court in its judgment (§67). It should be recalled that significant progress has already been achieved regarding the improvement of detention conditions at pre-trial detention facilities, SIZO (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)123).

- Measures taken with regard to administrative cells:

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 3/12/2004, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation adopted Order No. 804, point of which 11 prohibits the holding in administrative detention cells of suspects, accused persons or persons under trial.

• Secretariat’s assessment: In its report CPT/Inf(2003)30, the CPT reiterated its recommendation that material conditions in, and the use of, cells for administrative detention in district commands and local divisions of Internal Affairs be brought into conformity with the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order 170/1993 on the general conditions and regulations of detention in administrative detention cells. The CPT also recommended that:

- cells which do not correspond to the requirements of that Order should be withdrawn from service and

- administrative detention cells should not be used for accommodating detainees for more than 3 hours.

• Information is thus awaited on measures taken or planned to improve detention conditions in administrative cells since these recommendations were made.

- Measures under way with regard to temporary holding facilities for criminal suspects (IVS):

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: In 2007, 500 million RUR were provided in the budget for the reconstruction of IVS. In 2008-2009, it is planned to allocate 1 billion RUR to this purpose. It is also planned to build or to reconstruct 79 IVS in 2008-2010. According to Order No. 1/7290 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of 17/09/2007, a ministerial programme on construction and reconstruction of IVS for 2009-2010 is currently under preparation.

            2) Violation of Article 5§1: The Court found that the absence of records of the applicant's arrests and the refusal of the officer in charge to record them as appropriate must be considered as a grave violation of Article 5 (§78).

- Measures taken to ensure a proper record of apprehensions:

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 26/02/2002, the Ministry of Internal Affairs adopted an Order No. 174 dsp on measures to improve the activities of district commands. This Order provides for the setting-up of a Register of persons brought to a district command. The details, such as information about an arrested person on the basis of his/her identity documents, the time of their arrest and of their release, should be noted in this Register.

A list of documents to be established at the moment of arrest is provided by:

- Article 28.2 of the Code of administrative offences;

- Article 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which the arrest record should mention the date and hour of its drafting, the fact that the suspect has been notified of his or her rights, the results of his or her search and the other circumstances of the arrest; and

- Recommendations on the organisation of the activities of district commands of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of 26/02/2002 No174 dsp (point 45 of these recommendations provides that the fact of bringing a person at a district  command shall be registered in the Register of arrested persons).

• Secretariat’s assessment: It is recalled that given the particular importance of properly recording apprehensions in combating ill-treatment in police custody, this issue is also examined more in depth in the Mikheyev case (Section 4.3).

In its Report CPT/Inf(2003)31, the CPT pointed out that the maintenance of custody registers was not always followed (§41 of the report).

• Information is awaited on measures taken to ensure that registers are properly maintained and on sanctions against those responsible for the failure to do so. In this respect, a copy of the aforementioned Recommendations would be particularly useful.

- Remedies available for failure to comply with the rules on recording arrests

The Russian authorities have indicated that each citizen has the right to challenge the acts of police officers before their superiors, the prosecutor or courts. The arrested person has the right to be assisted by a lawyer as from his/her arrest. In accordance with Article 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the lawyer may also complain about the acts of prosecutors or investigators and to use other means of defence.

• More details in this respect would be useful, in particular on what is understood by “other means of defence”. Information is also awaited on how the control over the compliance with the obligation to maintain custody registers is ensured (prosecutors’ control, their powers in this respect, internal monitoring mechanisms, etc).

- Measures taken to ensure the regular updating of the federal list of wanted persons:

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 13/04/2006 the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a circular No. 1/2707 on the proper outcome of federally wanted persons. Once a federal search of a person ends, a special circular is sent by the main information analytical centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to other information centres, to the main department of Internal Affairs and to the local departments of the Interior. The automatic information database is updated every day. The work of all information centres is analysed quarterly and defects in their functioning are mentioned and analysed in the report.

            3) Violation of Article 5§5: On 14/03/2006, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by letter No. 629/1 sent the judgment of the European Court out to all lower courts. On 13/04/2006, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, by letter No1/2707, organised a study of the judgment for its operational and investigating members.

The judgment was published in the Bulletin of the European Court (Russian edition), 2006, No3.

            4) Violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The case presents similarities to the Timofeyev group of cases (Section 4.3).

- 16 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 33470/03     Antipenkov, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010 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 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 66688/01     Toporkov, judgment of 01/10/2009, final on 01/01/2010  These cases concern torture or inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicants in 1998-2001 while in police custody with a view to extracting confessions to committed criminal offences and the lack of effective investigations in this respect (substantial and procedural violations of Article 3). The Mikheyev case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy, particularly with regard to compensation (violation of Article 13). Individual measures: In all cases, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in relation to the violations found. 1) Mikheyev case: • Punishment of those responsible: The decision of the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod was upheld by the Criminal Chamber of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 30/11/2005 and became final on 27/01/2006. The subsequent appeals lodged by the two convicted police officers were rejected by the Supreme Court. The Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, who was allegedly involved in the events at issue (§ 68 of the judgment), was discharged on 1/04/2002 and died on 20/04/2002. • Possible compensation at domestic level: It would appear from the judgment that on 19/12/2001 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the domestic courts seeking compensation for different damages sustained. On 23/10/2002 these proceedings were suspended upon request of the applicant’s representative. On 26/01/2006 the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in relation to the violations found. The European Court considered that the fact that the applicant may still receive an award in respect of pecuniary damage through domestic legal proceedings did not deprive him of his right to claim compensation under Article 41 of the Convention. The applicant in particular claimed compensation for future medical expenses and loss of income. When making its own assessment of the amount of just satisfaction with regard to pecuniary losses, the European Court took into account the seriousness of the applicant’s condition, the need for specialised and continuous medical treatment and his complete inability to work in the future (§162 of the judgment). On 7/11/2006 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation as unsubstantiated on the ground that the applicant had already been compensated by the European Court in the amount higher than that provided by the Russian legislation. The applicant claimed compensation for continuous medical treatment, loss of earnings, payment of home nurse, purchase of medicines and non-pecuniary damage. He also referred to the fact that his living conditions were not appropriate for a disabled person, there being in particular no access ramps or lifting appliances installed, making it difficult for him to leave his apartment. He also referred to the risk that his health might deteriorate. On 26/12/2006 the cassation court confirmed the first-instance court judgment. • Applicant’s position: In his submissions of 13/10/2006 and of 18/08/2008, the applicant indicated that the amounts granted by the European Court constituted a fine imposed on the Russian Federation and a one-time payment. Consequently he is still entitled to receive compensation under the Russian law. • Russian authorities’ comments: In response to the issues raised by the applicant in his submissions, the Russian authorities referred to the aforementioned findings of the domestic courts rejecting the applicant’s claim. • Clarification is awaited as to whether and in what circumstances the applicant may seek additional assistance if his health further aggravates. 2) Maslova and Nalbandov case • Applicants’ submissions: The Regional NGO “Committee against Torture” of Nijny Novgorod lodged a number of submissions on the applicants’ behalf challenging the Russian authorities’ unwillingness effectively to prosecute and punish the persons responsible for torturing them. All these submissions were sent to the Russian authorities for comments. • The Russian authorities’ comments are awaited. 3) Polonskiy case: According to the information submitted by the Russian authorities, on 5/11/2009 the acting head of the Investigating Department in the Bolgograd Region annulled the decision, taken on 28/08/2009, to suspend the investigation of the applicant’s allegations of torture. • Information is awaited on the outcome of the new investigation. 4) All other cases: • Information is still awaited as to whether any action has been taken by the authorities following the applicants’ allegations of torture. General measures: 1) Information provided by the authorities of the Russian Federation: Since the Mikheyev judgment, the Russian authorities have provided information on different measures, taken or envisaged, to prevent new similar violations. The main elements are summarised below. (a) Legislative changes: The Russian authorities indicated that since the events described in most of the judgments, the new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force, reinforcing safeguards in police custody. The CCP provides in particular that a suspect may have access to his lawyer from the moment of his actual apprehension. It also provides that confessions made without the presence of a lawyer and not confirmed by the suspect in court are inadmissible. (b) Institutional changes: On 7/09/2007 the Investigating Committee was set up within the Prokuratura of the Russian Federation. This contributed to ensuring the independence of investigations by separating them from supervision by prosecutors. The investigation of alleged abuses by members of police forces falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investigative Committee. (c) Publication and dissemination: All judgments are regularly sent out to all authorities, i.e. judges, prosecutors, investigators, police officers. Such dissemination is always accompanied by circular letters from their hierarchy. In particular, in a circular letter of 22/05/2009 issued following the Barabanshchikov judgment, the Deputy Prosecutor General invited all prosecutors to take exhaustive measures with a view to establishing all circumstances in which injuries were inflicted on persons deprived of their liberty. In the course of the verifications and enquiries, prosecutors are invited to pay particular attention to inconsistencies or contradictions and to issue an objective and well-reasoned decision. Finally, the circular letter lays down that prosecutors of the subdivisions of the Russian Federation bear personal responsibility for the submission of poor-quality investigatory material for the verification by the Office of the Prosecutor General. In a circular letter of 24/06/2009 issued following the Nadrosov judgment, the Deputy Head of the Investigative Committee instructed all investigators to carry out a preliminary verification of each complaint of ill-treatment submitted by suspects or accused, to order a forensic medical examination of the victim and to take measures aimed at eradicating conditions and circumstances leading to violations of the rights of suspects and accused persons. (d) Latest developments: The Russian authorities are currently engaged in a comprehensive reform of the Ministry of the Interior. They submitted a draft law “On Police”. On 27/10/2010 the draft law “On Police” was tabled in Parliament by the President of the Russian Federation. 2) Outstanding issues: The constantly growing number of similar judgments and applications pending before the Court demonstrates that the problem of ill-treatment in police custody and lack of an effective investigation in this respect constitute a structural problem which requires the adoption of comprehensive and complex general measures to prevent new, similar violations. (a) Improvement of the legal and regulatory framework governing the police activities: The need for such measures seems to be recognised by the Russian authorities since they are now engaged in an important reform of the police. This reform may therefore constitute an excellent opportunity to ensure that the Russian legal and regulatory framework is brought into compliance with the requirements of the Convention, thus ensuring the Russia's compliance with the judgments of the European Court. Therefore the Russian authorities may wish to pay particular attention to the experience of other countries which faced similar problems and to further explore the following issues: -       reinforcement of the essential safeguards applicable to all persons deprived of their liberty (such as the right to inform a third party of their detention, the right to a lawyer and the right to a medical examination) and their effective implementation in practice (information on rights from the outset of the privation of liberty and appropriate record-keeping); -     measures to ensure that the police are accountable for abuses, including effective punishment of those responsible, the existence of appropriate mechanisms to tackle police misconduct and a police complaints system; -     development of modern methods of investigation and questioning, including audio/video recording of interviews, widespread recourse to forensic techniques and expert examinations; -     improvement of initial and in-service training of police officers, judges, prosecutors and investigators. (b) Ensuring effective investigation of alleged abuses: It results from the analysis of the Court’s judgments that ineffectiveness of domestic investigations was due to recurrent shortcomings, such as a deferential attitude of investigators to police officers’ statements and the applicants’ testimony, failure to look for corroborating evidence, failure to order rapidly forensic medical examination of applicants or failure to carry out a thorough evaluation with respect to the quantity and nature of their injuries, selective assessment of medical evidence, lack of access by victims to the investigation, failure to identify eyewitnesses, etc. It would appear that the Investigative Committee is paying increased attention to these cases as demonstrated in particular by the circular letter sent after the judgment. However, additional measures might be necessary to eradicate the shortcomings and change investigators’ attitude. 3) Submissions from different NGOs: Since the first examination of these cases, the Committee of Ministers has received several communications from different NGOs (an Interregional NGO “Committee against Torture” and a number of Russian NGOs) highlighting the lack of progress in adopting general measures by the Russian authorities. These submissions contain comments and recommendations on the general measures required by the judgments of the European Court. These submissions were transmitted to the Russian authorities and brought to the attention of the Committee of Ministers. The Deputies, 1.             took note with interest of the modifications in the legislation and administrative practice made by the Russian authorities since the events described in the judgments of the European Court; 2.             noted however that notwithstanding these modifications, there are still issues requiring further general measures to ensure effective protection against torture and ill-treatment; 3.             noted in this respect with satisfaction that the Russian authorities are currently engaged in a comprehensive reform of the Ministry of the Interior and that on 27 October 2010 a draft law on this subject was submitted to Parliament by the President of the Russian Federation; 4.             encouraged the Russian authorities to seize fully the opportunity offered by the ongoing comprehensive reform to ensure that the legal and regulatory framework for police activities contains all necessary safeguards against police arbitrariness and abuses similar to those found by the Court in its judgments; 5.             emphasised in this context the need for effective implementation of the requirements of the Convention in the domestic legal order, in particular those related to the safeguards applicable to any form of privation of liberty and effective investigation of alleged abuses, to prevent new, similar applications before the Court; 6.             decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH) , in the light of further information to be provided by the authorities on individual and general measures.

- 16 affaires concernant principalement les mauvais traitements infligés aux requérants durant leur garde à vue et l’absence d’enquête effective 77617/01      Mikheyev, arrêt du 26/01/2006, définitif le 26/04/2006 5742/02        Akulinin et Babich, arrêt du 02/10/2008, définitif le 02/01/2009 33470/03       Antipenkov, arrêt du 15/10/2009, définitif le 15/01/2010 36220/02       Barabanshchikov, arrêt du 31/07/2008, définitif le 26/01/2009 1748/02        Belousov, arrêt du 02/10/2008, définitif le 06/04/2009 3811/02        Denisenko et Bogdanchikov, arrêt du 12/02/2009, définitif le 12/05/2009 19223/04       Fedorov Vladimir, arrêt du 30/07/2009, définitif le 30/10/2009 2807/04        Gladyshev, arrêt du 30/07/2009, définitif le 30/10/2009, rectifié le 15/03/2010 30049/02       Kornev Yevgeniy, arrêt du 30/07/2009, définitif le 30/10/2009 839/02          Maslova et Nalbandov, arrêt du 24/01/2008, définitif le 07/07/2008 9297/02        Nadrosov, arrêt du 31/07/2008, définitif le 26/01/2009 36410/02       Nikitin Oleg, arrêt du 09/10/2008, définitif le 06/04/2009 30033/05       Polonskiy, arrêt du 19/03/2009, définitif le 14/09/2009 64398/01       Samoylov, arrêt du 02/10/2008, définitif le 06/04/2009 65859/01       Sheydayev, arrêt du 07/12/2006, définitif le 23/05/2007 66688/01       Toporkov, arrêt du 01/10/2009, définitif le 01/01/2010 Ces affaires concernent la torture ou les traitements inhumains et dégradants infligés aux requérants en 1998-2001 durant leur garde à vue en vue d’obtenir des aveux pour des infractions qu’ils étaient soupçonnés d’avoir commis et l’absence d’enquêtes effectives à cet égard (violations matérielles et procédurales de l’article 3). L’affaire Mikheyev concerne enfin l’absence de recours effectif, notamment en matière d’indemnisation (violation de l’article 13). Mesures de caractère individuel : 1) Affaire Mikheyev • Sanction des responsables: La décision du tribunal du district Leninskiy de Nijni Novgorod mentionnée ci-dessus a été confirmée par la Chambre criminelle de la Cour régionale de Nijni Novgorod le 30/11/2005 et est devenue définitive le 27/01/2006. Les recours déposés par la suite par les deux officiers de police condamnés ont été rejetés par la Cour Suprême. Le procureur adjoint de la région de Nijni Novgorod, prétendument impliqué dans les événements en question (§ 68 de l’arrêt), a été démis de ses fonctions le 1/04/2002 et est décédé le 20/04/2002. • Eventuelle indemnisation du requérant au niveau interne : Il apparaît à la lecture de l’arrêt que le 19/12/2001, le requérant a engagé une action civile devant les tribunaux internes visant à l’indemnisation de différents dommages subis. Le 23/10/2002, cette procédure a été suspendue à la demande du représentant du requérant. Le 26/01/2006, la Cour européenne a accordé une satisfaction équitable au requérant au titre du dommage matériel et moral subi en rapport avec les violations constatées. La Cour européenne a estimé que le fait que le requérant puisse recevoir une indemnisation du préjudice matériel dans le cadre de la procédure interne ne le privait pas du droit de demander une indemnisation en vertu de l’article 41 de la Convention. Le requérant a demandé en particulier une indemnisation au titre des futurs frais médicaux et de la perte de revenus. En faisant sa propre évaluation du montant de la satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice matériel, la Cour européenne a tenu compte de la gravité de l’état du requérant, de la nécessité de traitement médical spécialisé et continu et de son incapacité complète de travailler à l’avenir (§162 de l’arrêt). Le 7/11/2006, le tribunal de première instance a rejeté la demande d’indemnisation du requérant estimant qu’elle était infondée au motif que la Cour européenne avait déjà accordé une indemnisation au requérant d’un montant pus élevé que celui qu’il aurait pu obtenir en vertu du droit russe. Le requérant demandait une indemnisation à titre de traitement médical permanent, perte de revenus, rémunération de garde malade, achat des médicaments et préjudice moral. Il s’était également référé au fait que ces conditions d’habitation n’étaient pas adaptées à son état d’invalidité, notamment à l’absence de pont élévateur ou de monte-charge l’empêchant de quitter son appartement. Enfin, il s’est référé au risque d’aggravation de son état de santé. Le 26/12/2006, la décision de rejet rendue par le tribunal de première instance a été confirmée par la cour de cassation. • Position du requérant : Dans ses observations du 13/10/2006 et du 18/08/2008, le requérant a indiqué que les montants accordés par la Cour européenne constituaient une amende imposée à la Fédération de Russie et un seul versement. Par conséquent, il est toujours en droit de recevoir une indemnisation conformément au droit russe. • Commentaires des autorités russes : En réponse aux questions soulevées par le requérant dans ses observations, les autorités russes se sont référées aux décisions précités des tribunaux internes rejetant ses demandes. • Des clarifications sont attendues sur le fait de savoir si le requérant peut demander une aide complémentaire si son état de santé venait à s’aggraver et si oui, dans quelles conditions. 2) Affaire Maslova et Nalbandov • Mémoires des requérants : Le Comité contre la torture, ONG régionale de Nijni Novgorod, a déposé un certain nombre de mémoires, au nom des requérants, contestant l’absence de volonté des autorités russes de poursuivre effectivement et de punir les personnes responsables d’avoir torturé les requérants. Tous ces mémoires ont été adressés pour observations aux autorités russes. • Les observations des autorités russes sont attendues. 3) Affaire Polonskiy : Selon les informations fournies par les autorités russes, le chef par intérim du Comité d’investigation de la Région de Volgograd a annulé le 5/11/2009 la décision de suspendre l’investigation sur les allégations de torture du requérant, qui avait été prise le 28/08/2009. • Des informations sont attendues sur l’issue des nouvelles investigations. 4) Autres affaires • Des informations sont toujours attendues sur les mesures éventuelles prises par les autorités à la suite des allégations de torture des requérants. Mesures de caractère général : 1) Informations fournies par les autorités de la Fédération de Russie : Depuis l’arrêt Mikheyev, les autorités russes ont fourni des informations sur différentes mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir des violations similaires. Les principaux éléments en sont résumés ci-dessous. (a) Modifications législatives : les autorités russes ont indiqué que depuis les événements décrits dans la plupart des arrêts, le Nouveau code de procédure pénale qui est entré en vigueur, renforce les garanties dans le cadre de la garde à vue. Il prévoit notamment qu’un suspect peut avoir accès à son avocat dès l’instant de son arrestation effective. Il précise aussi que les aveux obtenus en l’absence d’un avocat et qui ne sont pas confirmés par le suspect au tribunal sont irrecevables. (b) Changements institutionnels : Le 7/09/2007, le Comité d’investigation a été créé auprès de la Prokuratura de la Fédération de Russie. Sa mise en place a contribué à assurer l’indépendance des enquêtes en les soustrayant au contrôle du procureur. L’investigation des allégations d’abus dus à des fonctionnaires des forces de police relève de la compétence exclusive du Comité d’investigation. (c) Publication et diffusion : Les arrêts sont tous diffusés régulièrement à l’ensemble des autorités compétentes : juges, procureurs, agents d’investigation, et fonctionnaires de police. Ils sont toujours accompagnés de circulaires de la hiérarchie. Ainsi, dans une circulaire du 22/05/2009 publiée à la suite de l’arrêt Barabanshchikov, le Procureur général adjoint a invité tous les procureurs à prendre toutes les mesures pour établir l’ensemble des circonstances dans lesquelles des lésions avaient été infligées à des personnes privées de liberté. Au cours des vérifications et des examens, les procureurs sont invités à étudier avec une attention particulière les incohérences ou les contradictions et à prendre une décision rigoureuse et dûment motivée. Enfin, la circulaire prévoit que les procureurs des entités de la Fédération de Russie assument personnellement la responsabilité de la soumission de pièces d’investigation peu satisfaisantes pour vérification à la Prokuratura générale. Dans une circulaire publiée le 24/06/2009 à la suite de l’arrêt Nadrosov, le vice-président du Comité d’investigation a chargé tous les agents d’investigation de réaliser une vérification préliminaire de chaque plainte pour mauvais traitements soumis par des suspects ou des inculpés, d’ordonner une expertise médicale de la victime et de prendre des mesures afin d’éliminer les conditions et les circonstances qui ont conduit aux violations des droits des suspects et des personnes mises en accusation. (d) Derniers développements. Les autorités russes ont entamé une réforme globale du Ministère de l’Intérieur. Elles ont soumis un projet de loi « sur la Police ». Le 27/10/2010 le projet de Loi « sur la Police » a été déposé devant le Parlement par le Président de la Fédération de Russie. 2) Questions en suspens : Le nombre en augmentation constante d'arrêts semblables rendus et de requêtes similaires pendantes devant la Cour montre que le problème des mauvais traitements infligés en garde à vue et le manque d'effectivité des enquêtes à cet égard constituent un problème structurel qui suppose l'adoption de mesures de caractère général globales et complexes pour prévenir de nouvelles violations. (a) Améliorer le cadre légal et réglementaire qui régit les activités de la police: Les autorités russes semblent reconnaître la nécessité de ces mesures, car elles ont entamé une vaste réforme de la police. C'est pourquoi, cette réforme pourrait constituer une excellente occasion de faire en sorte que le cadre légal et réglementaire russe soit harmonisé avec les exigences de la Convention, ce qui permettrait à la Russie de se conformer aux arrêts de la Cour européenne. C'est pourquoi, les autorités russes pourraient en particulier prêter une attention particulière à l’expérience d’autres Etats qui ont été confrontés à des situations similaires et à poursuivre l’examen des questions suivantes : -         renforcement des garanties essentielles applicables à toutes les personnes privées de liberté (comme le droit d’informer un tiers de la détention, le droit à un avocat et à un examen médical) et mise en œuvre effective (information sur les droits dès le début de la privation de liberté et tenue appropriée de registres), -         mesures pour obliger la police à rendre des comptes en cas d’abus, y compris la sanction des responsables, utilisation de mécanismes appropriés pour faire face aux cas de « bavures » policières ; et système de plaintes concernant la police ; -         élaboration de méthodes modernes d’investigation et d’interrogatoire, y compris le recours aux enregistrements audio/vidéo de ceux-ci, et un large recours aux techniques d’expertise médico-légale ; -         amélioration de la formation initiale et continue des fonctionnaires de police, des juges, des procureurs et des agents d’investigation. (b) Garantir des investigations effectives en cas d’allégations d’abus : Il ressort de l’analyse des arrêts de la Cour que l’ineffectivité des enquêtes internes était due à des défaillances récurrentes, comme le fait que les agents d’investigations acceptaient sans réserve les déclarations des fonctionnaires de police et des requérants, qu’ils ne recherchaient pas de preuves à l’appui, qu’ils ne demandaient pas rapidement un examen médico-légal des requérants ou qu’ils n’évaluaient pas en détail le nombre et la nature des lésions subies par les requérants, l’évaluation sélective des conclusions médicales, le défaut d’accès des victimes à l’investigation, le fait de ne pas avoir identifié de témoins oculaires etc. Il semble que le Comité d’investigation accorde davantage d’attention à ces affaires ainsi que le montre la circulaire précitée, diffusée après l’arrêt Nadrosov. Toutefois, des mesures complémentaires pourraient être nécessaires pour éliminer les insuffisances ci-dessus et modifier l’attitude des agents d‘investigation. 3) Mémoires de différentes ONG : Depuis le premier examen de ces affaires, le Comité des Ministres a reçu plusieurs communications de diverses ONG (le « Comité contre la torture », une ONG interrégionale, et un certain nombre d’ONG de Russie) selon lequel l’adoption de mesures de caractère général par les autorités russes n’avancent pas. Ces mémoires comprennent des observations et des recommandations sur les mesures de caractère général requises par les arrêts de la Cour européenne. Ils ont été transmis aux autorités russes et portés à l’attention du Comité des Ministres. Les Délégués, 1.             prennent note avec intérêt des modifications dans la législation et la pratique administrative, faites par les autorités russes depuis les événements décrits dans les arrêts de la Cour européenne ; 2.             notent cependant que nonobstant ces modifications, il reste toujours des questions nécessitant d’autres mesures générales afin de garantir une protection effective contre la torture et les mauvais traitements ; 3.             notent à cet égard avec satisfaction que les autorités russes sont actuellement engagées dans une réforme d'ampleur du Ministère de l’Intérieur et que le 27 octobre 2010 un projet de loi à ce sujet a été soumis au Parlement par le Président de la Fédération de Russie ; 4.             encouragent les autorités russes à saisir pleinement l’opportunité que représente cette réforme d'ampleur en cours pour garantir que le cadre législatif et réglementaire applicable aux activités de la police contienne toutes les garanties nécessaires contre l’arbitraire de la police et les abus similaires à ceux constatés par la Cour européenne dans ses arrêts ; 5.             soulignent dans ce contexte la nécessité d’une mise en œuvre effective des exigences de la Convention dans l’ordre juridique interne, en particulier celles relatives aux garanties applicables à toute forme de privation de liberté et aux enquêtes effectives concernant les abus éventuels, ceci afin de prévenir de nouvelles requêtes similaires devant la Cour; 6.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ces points à leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière d’autres informations à fournir par les autorités russes sur les mesures individuelles et générales.

22625/02           Mironov, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 08/02/2008

This case concerns the poor conditions under which the applicant was detained in Remand Prison IZ-50/9 between 27/05 and 5/10/2002 (violation of Article 3).

It further concerns the authorities’ failure to carry out a medical examination to ascertain whether the applicant had sustained any injuries as a result of an incident in Remand Prison IZ-50/9 on 23/06/2002 (violation of Article 3).

General measures: The question of poor conditions of pre-trial detention is being examined in the Kalashnikov group of cases (47095/99, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

• An action plan/action report is awaited in respect of other violations.

22107/03           Antropov, judgment of 29/01/2009, final on 29/04/2009[81]

                       - 2 cases concerning ill-treatment inflicted in prison by a special unit and/or the lack of an effective remedy in this respect

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

The Dedovskiy case concerns various violations related to torture inflicted on the applicants while serving their prison sentences, due to unlawful and disproportionate use of rubber truncheons against them by the “Varyag squad”, a special unit created to maintain order in detention facilities.

In April 2001 the squad was called into the Chepets correctional colony, allegedly to intimidate detainees who were being encouraged to be subversive by the leader of a criminal gang. The squad had instructions to maintain order by carrying out body searches of detainees and searches of all quarters within the colony. The whole squad, except for its commander, wore balaclava helmets and camouflage uniforms with no indication of their rank and were armed with rubber truncheons.

The European Court found that the squad’s use of truncheons had had no basis in law. The Penitentiary Institutions Act permitted rubber truncheons to be used in certain situations such as curtailing assaults, repressing mass disorder and apprehending those who persistently disobeyed or resisted officers. However, there was no evidence that the applicants had attacked officers or other detainees, the beatings had been individual, rather than collective, in nature and, even though some applicants had allegedly disobeyed or resisted officers’ orders, no attempt had been made to arrest them.

The European Court further found that the actions by the unit officers were grossly disproportionate to the applicants’ imputed transgressions and manifestly inconsistent with the goals they sought to achieve. The Court therefore concluded that the squad had resorted to deliberate and gratuitous violence and had intended to arouse in the applicants feelings of fear and humiliation, which would break their physical or moral resistance. The purpose of that treatment had been to debase the applicants and drive them into submission. The European Court found that the truncheon blows must have caused them intense mental and physical suffering amounting to torture (substantive violation of Article 3).

The European Court also found that the investigation carried out into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment had not been thorough, adequate or efficient. The Court criticised in particular the circumstances in which the criminal proceedings had been discontinued. It first noted that no evidence was produced to show that the applicants had been medically examined following those events. It then considered that, by allowing the squad to cover their faces and not to wear any distinctive signs on their uniform, the Russian authorities had knowingly made it impossible to have them identified by their victims. It also noted that the prosecutor’s decisions to discontinue the proceedings were not served on the applicants. Finally, the European Court pointed out the contradictory nature of the grounds used to justify the acquittal of the commander of the squad (procedural violation of Article 3).

Finally, after the criminal proceedings had been discontinued, any other remedy available to the applicants, including a claim for damages, had limited chances of success. The European Court therefore concluded that the applicants had not disposed of an effective remedy under domestic law to claim compensation for the ill-treatment they had suffered (violation of Article 13).

The European Court also found a violation of the respondent state's obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in establishing the facts on account of the authorities’ failure to provide a copy of the report on the inquiry carried out by a representative of the Prosecutor General’s Office without any justification (violation of Article 38§1a).

The Alibekov case concerns the lack of an effective investigation of alleged ill-treatment of a detainee by a special unit created to maintain order (procedural violation of Article 3).

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

• Information is also awaited on measures possibly taken or planned to remedy the shortcomings of the investigation and previous criminal proceedings identified by the European Court in its judgments, and in particular on the re-opening of proceedings.

General measures: It appears that this judgment requires important general measures to prevent new, similar violations.

1) Material violation of Article 3 – use of special means of constraint: The relevant provisions of the Penitentiary Institutions Act have not been challenged by the European Court. However, it results from the judgment that these provisions were not complied with by the special unit officers in this particular case.

• Information is thus awaited on the measures taken or planned to ensure that the force and special coercive means used are strictly proportionate to the aim pursued. Information is also awaited on the existence of any regulatory framework governing the planning and conduct of such operations, the training of the members of special units, etc.

2) Procedural violation of Article 3 – investigation of alleged abuses:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to ensure prompt and comprehensive medical examination of inmates in similar situations.

Information is awaited on whether there is an obligation to report each occurrence of the use of rubber truncheons, i.e. on the nature of the reporting procedure, the existence of a monitoring system for the use of special means of constraint, the person or body responsible for such monitoring, whether a written report is drawn up as a result of such monitoring/verification, the circumstances in which the results of such monitoring give rise to a criminal investigation.

Information is also awaited as to whether commanding (superior) officers may be held responsible if their subordinates resort, or have resorted, to unlawful use of force, and if they have failed to take all measures in their power to prevent, suppress or report such use. And if so, information would be useful on how their responsibility is engaged, i.e. the authority in charge of the prosecution, etc.

3) Violation of Article 13 – existence of an effective remedy: This aspect presents similarities to the Khashiyev group of cases (57942/00, Section 4.3).

4) Violation of Article 38 § 1 a) – Obligation to co-operate with the European Court: This aspect also presents similarities to the Khashiyev group of cases, above-mentioned. See in particular the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat CM/Inf/DH(2008)33, §§ 131-137.

5) Publication and dissemination:

• Information is awaited on the publication of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to all authorities concerned, in particular to the relevant departments of the Federal service for execution of sentences, to prosecutors, to members of the Investigating Committee and to all courts. In view of the seriousness of the violations found, it appears appropriate that such dissemination is accompanied by appropriate circular letters and/or instructions drawing the attention of the authorities concerned to their obligations under the Convention.

                        - 2 cases concerning conditions of confinement in a court house[82]

3522/04            Salmanov, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

42239/02           Starokadomskiy, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

7188/03            Chember, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

The case concerns the ill-treatment of the applicant during compulsory military service which resulted in long-term damage to his health.

In March 2001, as punishment for not cleaning the barracks adequately, the applicant was ordered by his commanders to do 350 knee-bends. He collapsed during the exercise and was taken to hospital. Diagnosed with a spinal injury, he can no longer walk properly and in June 2001 was discharged from military service on medical grounds.

The European Court noted that the applicant's commanders forced him to do precisely the kind of exercise that put great strain on his knees and spine even though they had been aware of his knee problems. Accordingly, the Court found that the treatment inflicted on the applicant was both deliberate and calculated to cause him intense physical suffering amounting to inhuman treatment and concluded that the severity of the punishment could not obviously be accounted for by any requirement of military service or discipline, or be said to have contributed to the specific mission of the armed forces (substantial violation of Article 3).

The case also concerns the lack of an effective investigation of the applicant’s complaints and the absence of a remedy in civil law. The European Court noted a number of shortcomings of the domestic investigation. The military prosecutor's decision not to prosecute was solely based on the explanations given by the applicant's commanders. It did not refer to any medical examination of the applicant, any questioning of witnesses of the events, including the applicant himself. He was not mentioned in the decision and not granted victim status, and was thus deprived of all procedural rights. Despite these shortcomings, the senior prosecutor refused to re-examine the case on the ground that a civil court had already done so in the framework of civil proceedings initiated by the applicant.

However, the European Court noted that the civil court merely endorsed the prosecutor's decision not to prosecute. In these circumstances, the European Court found that the applicant had been caught up in a vicious circle of shifted responsibility in which no domestic authority had reviewed or remedied the shortcomings of the inquiry (procedural violation of Article 3).

Finally the case concerns the fact that the ineffectiveness of the investigation undermined the outcome of the applicant's civil claim. The European Court noted in this respect a peculiar feature of Russian criminal law system, in that a decision not to bring charges on the ground that no offence had been committed debarred the applicant from suing for damages in a civil court (violation of Article 13).

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

It results from the judgment that following the applicant's discharge, on 29/08/2001, he was diagnosed with a second-category disability and became entitled to a civilian disability pension. His attempts to claim a military pension were unsuccessful on the ground that the condition had been diagnosed during military service but not acquired during military service.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (2/06/2009): On 10/03/2009 the Military Prosecutors’ Office re-opened the investigation upon the complaint of the applicant’s mother, lodged in 2001, on abuse of power by the applicant’s commanders.

The authorities also provided information on the possibility for the applicant to claim additional compensation in the light of the European Court's findings.

• Bilateral consultations are pending between the authorities and the Secretariat on this issue.

• Information is awaited as to the outcome of the investigation

General Measures:

1) Ill-treatment during military service: It results from the judgment that the applicant collapsed following strenuous exercise ordered by his immediate superior Sergeant Ch., with the tacit approval of Lieutenant D., as punishment for his failure to clean the barracks.

• On 2/06/2009 the authorities provided information on the rules governing the application of disciplinary sanctions and punishments of conscripts in the armed forces as well as on how medical care is organised during military service.

• This information is being assessed.

            2) Effectiveness of the investigation: The European Court identified the following shortcomings:

-           the investigation was not sufficiently thorough particularly as soldiers who could have been eye-witnesses to the alleged ill-treatment were not questioned;

-           the applicant could not formally claim victim status, as no criminal proceedings were instituted;

-           no independent review was exercised over the investigator's decision not to prosecute.

The new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in 2002, i.e. after the events at issue. Moreover, as from 7/09/2007 the investigation of offences, which previously fell within the jurisdiction of prosecutors, now falls within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Committee set up with the Prokuratura of the Russian Federation. Prosecutors exercise control over the lawfulness of decisions taken by the investigators, not least decisions not to prosecute.

• On 2/06/2009 the authorities provided information on the rules currently governing the initiation of criminal proceedings.

• The information submitted is being assessed.

            3) Civil-law remedy: The Court noted in its judgment the peculiar feature of Russian criminal law which made the possibility of lodging a civil claim for damages against the putative tortfeasor conditional on the grounds on which the criminal proceedings were discontinued. According to Article 213§4 and Articles 24§1(1) and 27§1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a decision to discontinue proceedings on the ground that the alleged offence was not committed (otsutstvie sobytiya prestupleniya) legally bars access to a civil court on the basis of a claim for damages arising out of the same event (§37 and §72 of the judgment).

It is noted that in the framework of the supervision of the execution of the Khashiyev group of cases (Section 4.3), the Russian authorities provided examples of domestic courts' case-law on the compensation of victims even in the absence of the results of a criminal investigation or in case of the discontinuation of criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti (see CM/Inf/DH(2008)33-Add, §§ 25-27).

However, it remains to be determined, in particular in the absence of a Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the application of the relevant provisions, whether these examples may be considered as showing the existence of a sufficiently established and consistent case-law as required by the Convention.

• Clarification is still awaited on the current state of the domestic courts' case-law on the compensation of victims in cases in which criminal proceedings were discontinued according to Article 213§4(1) and Articles 24§1 and 27§1(1)). Examples of judicial practice would be particularly welcomed.

            4) Publication and dissemination: The European Court's judgment together with a circular letter was sent to all relevant authorities, in particular the Prosecutor General's Office, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Interior of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and to the Investigating Committee set up with the Prokuratura of the Russian Federation to take measures aimed at elimination of the violations found and prevention of further similar violations.

The judgment was also sent for information to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the South Federal District.    

The judgement was further disseminated to all courts, prosecutors, investigators and to the relevant departments of the Ministry of Defence together with circular letters and appropriate instructions.

25948/05           Knyazev, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of individual petition in that state officials forced him to make a written statement indicating that he wished to withdraw an application before the European Court of Human Rights (violation of Article 34).

The European Court observed that it had been informed by the applicant that this statement had been written under duress and should be disregarded. The Court registered astonishment at the fact that, having communicated this information to the Russian government, the latter nonetheless sent the statement to the Court and insisted that it had been written voluntarily.

Individual measures: The European Court considered that finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on publication, dissemination and other general measures to prevent further similar violations.

3896/04            Ryabov, judgment of 31/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of individual petition on account of the opening of a police inquiry into the applicant’s relationship with his lawyer, Mrs. Moskalenko, and the fact that he was interrogated about it in prison (violation of Article 34).

In 2005 the Economic Security Department of the Ministry of the Interior carried out an inquiry into financial arrangements between the applicant and his lawyer in connection with the applicant’s representation before the European Court. The applicant was also visited in prison by state officials who attempted to obtain written statements from him on the subject.

The European Court found that the steps taken by the Russian authorities to inquire into the financial arrangements between the applicant and Mrs Moskalenko, including contacting her law office and the applicant himself in prison, had lacked any basis in law or in fact and had specifically targeted the applicant’s representative in order to prevent her from participating in the Strasbourg proceedings.

Individual measures: The applicant did not claim just satisfaction in respect of the violation of Article 34.

• Confirmation would be useful on whether the police inquiry in respect of Mrs. Moskalenko has been ended.

General measures: The European Court has found a violation of Article 34 in a number of cases against the Russian Federation on account of the authorities’ interference with an applicant’s right of individual petition due to a police inquiry opened against his lawyer and to his questioning in prison by state officials in relation to proceedings pending before the European Court.

In the initial cases of Fedotova (73225/01, Section 4.2) and Popov (26853/04, Section 4.2), the Committee is awaiting information on legislative or other measures envisaged to ensure effective operation of the system of individual petition.

• Information is awaited on the measures taken or envisaged in order to prevent any such violations in the future.

• Information is also expected concerning the publication and dissemination of the judgment.

In this context, the authorities' attention could be drawn to the Committee's Resolutions ResDH(2001)66 and ResDH(2006)45 stressing that the principle of co-operation with the Court embodied in the Convention is of fundamental importance for the proper and effective functioning of the Convention system and calling upon the governments of the contracting states to ensure that all relevant authorities comply strictly with this obligation.

                       - 62 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)

The violations in these cases may be summarised as follows:

(a) Unlawful detention (violations of Article 5§1): The Gusinskiy case concerns the applicant's detention in custody for three days in June 2000 pursuant to the legal provisions then in force, which allowed privation of a suspect's liberty before bringing charges in "exceptional circumstances" (Articles 90 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure). The European Court found that the meaning of this provision was not sufficiently accessible and precise to meet the "quality of law" requirement enshrined in the Convention.

In all the other cases, the unlawful character of the applicants' detention on remand was due to:

-           the extension of detention “pending investigation” beyond the time-limit provided by domestic law and with retrospective effect;

-           the practice of keeping accused persons in detention on the sole ground that a bill of indictment had been lodged with the trial court;

-           the failure to indicate any legal ground or time-limit in the subsequent court decision remitting the case for additional investigation and remanding the applicant in custody.

(b) Insufficient grounds for extending detention on remand: justified solely by the gravity of the accusations without consideration of the facts (violations of Article 5§3): The following failures on the part of the authorities were identified by the European Court in the Korchuganova case (before the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal procedure) and in the Khudoyorov case (some detention orders were made after the entry into force of the new CCP):

-           the failure to give other grounds than the persistence of reasonable suspicion to justify the applicant's continuing detention;

-           the failure to indicate any concrete fact warranting the applicants' detention;

-           the failure to consider alternative “preventive measures” to ensure applicants' presence at trial notwithstanding the express requirement of the new Code of Criminal Procedure; and

-           an established practice of issuing collective extension orders, thereby ignoring the personal circumstances of individual detainees.

It results from the judgment in the Dolgova case that in 2004-2005 the domestic courts continued to use the same summary formula and stereotyped wording based on the gravity of charges without proper regard to personal circumstances of detainees, and failed to consider alternative preventive measures.

(c) Limited scope and excessive length of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention (violations of Article 5§4): The European Court found that the violations were in particular due to:

-           the limited scope of judicial review by the domestic courts, not least by the Supreme Court itself, which failed to address the applicants’ relevant arguments challenging the lawfulness of their detention, (Klyakhin and Khudoyorov cases);

-           the excessive length of the examination of the applicants' applications for release which were moreover in breach of the time-limits provided by domestic law:

-           courts’ denial of the applicants' right to a judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of their detention pending trial (Nakmanovich and Bednov cases).

(d) Excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1) and lack of effective domestic remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13): A number of cases also concern excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect.

e. Censorship of the applicants’ correspondence and violation of the right of individual petition (violations of Articles 8 and 34): The Klyakhin case also concerns the opening and censoring of the applicant's correspondence with the European Court (violation of Article 8) and the hindrance of the applicant's right to individual petition as his letters to the Court were either not sent, or posted months later, without their enclosures, and letters he received from the Court were mostly not given to him or given without enclosures (violation of Article 34).

Individual measures:

• Information is awaited on the current state of proceedings and on the measures taken with a view to accelerating their outcome in the Rokhlina, Belevitskiy, Komarova, Korshunov and Sidorenko cases.

General measures:

            1) Unlawful detention and excessive length of detention on remand: The general measures taken or envisaged by the Russian authorities are summarised in the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2007)4 and in Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)35 adopted in the Kalashnikov group of cases. In addition, on 9-10/12/2009 the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court organised in Warsaw a Round Table “Detention on remand: general measures to comply with the European Court’s judgments” with the participation of the representatives of different Russian authorities. The Conclusions adopted as a result of this Round Table may be found at: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Inf/DH(2009)53&Language=lanEnglish>. The authorities may also wish to use the experience of 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).

• Information is awaited on the action taken following the adoption of the Interim Resolution mentioned above and the conclusions of the Round Table.

2) Excessive length of criminal proceedings: General measures are being examined in the context of the Smirnova group of cases (46133/99, Section 4.2).

            3) Violations of Articles 8 and 34: As regards the opening and hindrance of the applicant's correspondence while in jail, the Klyakhin case present similarities to that of Poleshchuk in which general measures to prevent new similar violations have already been taken (Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)19).

            4) Publication and dissemination: All judgments are regularly disseminated to all relevant authorities, such as judges, prosecutors, investigators, etc.

16159/03           Lobanov, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the detention of the applicant due to a delay in his release from imprisonment in Russia, as ordered by a Kazakh court (violation of Article 5§1). The applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in Kazakhstan. At his own request, he was transferred to Russia to serve his sentence. On 16/03/2000, following the applicant’s request for supervisory review, a Kazakh court reclassified the offence and discharged the applicant from serving the remainder of his sentence. The Russian authorities received the court’s decision on 18/05/2000. The applicant was released on 10/07/2000, i.e. a month and twenty-two days later. The European Court criticised the neglect on the part of the Russian authorities in respect of the applicant’s right to liberty. The Court noted a striking slowness in the delivery of documents concerning the applicant’s release.

The case further concerns the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the privation of liberty, as the domestic courts dismissed his compensation claim establishing no unjustified delay in executing the Kazakh court’s decision (violation of Article 5§5).

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

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: Preliminary information on the dissemination of the judgment was provided by the Russian authorities at 1059th meeting (June 2009).

• Information is still awaited on the following issues:

1) Violation of Article 5§1:

• Information is awaited on a legislative and administrative framework which would ensure that all measures required for a detainee’s release are taken promptly and diligently, in particular, on the possibility of using the mechanism for delivery of governmental mail for correspondence concerning release orders.

2) Violation of Article 5§5:

• Information is awaited on the legislative framework governing compensation for damages sustained as a result of unlawful detention. Information is also awaited on publication of the European Courts’ judgment and its dissemination.

78146/01           Vlasov, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

The case concerns a number of violations in relation to the applicant’s pre-trial detention in 1999-2003in the Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre (No. 99/1).

Conditions of the applicant’s detention: the European Court found that they amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment because he was forced to live, sleep and use the toilet in poorly lit and ventilated cells with many other inmates for almost three years (violation of Article 3). The European Court further noted that no domestic remedy was available to the applicant to complain about the general conditions of his detention (violation of Article 13).

Conditions of the applicant’s transport to the courthouse: the European Court found that they amounted to inhuman treatment in view of the fact that he had been transported more than a hundred times in standard-issue prison vans, which had no heating and were often overcrowded, without food, drink or access to a toilet, on average, six hours per day and at times (during his trial or at hearings concerning the extension of his detention) when he needed his powers of concentration (violation of Article 3).

The applicant’s pre-trial detention: the European Court decided that this detention was excessively lengthy on the grounds that the domestic courts failed to justify its extension by reasons which could be regarded as sufficient (violation of Article 5§3).

Proceedings in criminal cases against the applicant: the European Court found that they were excessively long (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant’s right to receive family visits whilst in detention: the European Court found that the Custody Act (Federal Law on the Detention of Suspects and Defendants, No. 103-FZ of 15/07/1995) and the Internal Rules for Remand Centres fell short of the requirement of foreseeability as they conferred unfettered discretion on the investigator in this matter but did not define the circumstances in which a family visit could be refused. The impugned provisions only mentioned the possibility of refusing family visits, without saying anything about the duration of the measure or the reasons that may warrant its application (violation of Article 8).

The prison authorities’ refusal to post a complaint to a court on the ground that it had “no prospects of success”: the Court found that such an interference did not have any basis in law (violation of Article 8).

The prison authorities’ refusal to post the applicant’s letters to his wife and his mother on the ground that they contained confidential information about the case or expressed contempt for the law-enforcement authorities: the Court found that the interference at issue was not “necessary in a democratic society”, notably because there was no supporting evidence to that effect (violation of Article 8). The Court recalled in this respect that a prohibition on private correspondence “calculated to hold the authorities up to contempt” or employing “improper language against prison authorities” was not “necessary in a democratic society”.

Interception of the forms of authority sent to his lawyer, appending of customs documents to the case file and refusal to provide him with a law book: the European Court found that these interferences were arbitrary and not “prescribed by law” (violation of Article 8).

Finally, the European Court found that the applicant did not have an effective remedy for his complaints about restrictions on family visits and correspondence. In March 1999 the Constitutional Court declared incompatible with the Constitution the criminal-law provisions which restricted the scope of judicial review notably in this domain. Despite this decision of the Constitutional Court, the applicant’s complaints were examined by the domestic courts only four years later, when he was already free (violation of Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 8).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. It results from the judgment that the applicant was released on bail on 12/07/2002.

It also results from the judgment that two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant. In the first set of criminal proceedings, the applicant was convicted in November 2003 and sentenced to five years’ and six months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years (see §§ 16, 17 and 29).

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: As regards the second set of criminal proceedings, these proceedings were closed on 27/10/2008: the applicant was convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

• Information is awaited on the applicant’s current situation, in particular on his current conditions of detention if he is in detention.

General measures:

1) Poor conditions of pre-trial detention and lack of an effective remedy in this respect: These issues are being examined in the framework of the Kalashnikov group of cases (47095/99, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

2) Poor conditions of transport to the courthouse: This issue is also being examined in the framework of the Salmanov group of cases (3522/04, Section 4.2).

3) Excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings: These issues are being examined in the framework of the Smirnova group of cases (46133/99,Section 4.2, see also CM/Inf/DH(2007)4).

4) Restrictions on detainees’ correspondence and family visits and lack of an effective remedy in this respect:

- Restrictions on family visits: It would appear that the provisions of the Custody Act (Federal Law on the

Detention of Suspects and Defendants, No. 103-FZ of 15/07/1995) and the Internal Rules for Remand Centres did not meet the Convention’s requirement of foreseeability (see § 126 of the judgment).

• Information is thus awaited on the measures taken or envisaged to bring the provisions of these acts in line with the Convention’s requirements.

- Other violations of Article 8: It would appear that these violations were due to the misapplication of different provisions of the Custody Act and the Internal Rules for Remand Centres, in particular Section 20 of the Custody Act and paragraph 8.9 of the Rules on correspondence of detainees with their family members, Section 17 of the Custody Act and paragraph 12.11 of the Internal Rules on the forms of authority (see §§ 135-138, 140-142 and 147 of the judgment).

• Information is thus awaited on measures taken or planned to ensure the application of these provisions in conformity with the Convention’s requirements and the findings of the European Court, not least through issuing particular instructions and strengthening the professional liability of the officers responsible for their implementation.

- Lack of an effective remedy: It would appear that at the material time the Code of Criminal Procedure in force did not expressly provide judicial review of investigators’ decisions. The Constitutional Court filled in the gap in its Ruling No. 5-P of 23/03/1999. The Constitutional Court held that any investigator’s decision affecting constitutional rights and freedoms should be subject to judicial review. The Constitutional Court specified, in a later decision of 21/12/2001 delivered on the applicant’s request, that decisions concerning refusal to provide documents and materials necessary for the defence, refusals to authorise family visits and restrictions on correspondence should also subjected to such review.

The new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in 2002. The Code now contains Chapter 16 on judicial review of decisions taken by investigators. In Article 125§3, it provides that a judge should examine the whether an investigator’s decision is lawful and adequately grounded not later than 5 days after the lodging of a complaint.

On 10/02/2009 the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Rulings Nos. 2 and 3 clarified that, in accordance with Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any decision of an official violating constitutional rights of a person may be contested before a court (if such violation cannot be remedied in the course of the main criminal proceedings or if no prejudgment is involved), including the decisions to restrict a detainee's correspondence and family visits.

On 10/02/2009 the Plenum of the Supreme Court clarified that, in accordance with Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any decision taken by an official during the criminal proceedings, violating constitutional rights of a person may be contested before a court (if such violation cannot be remedied in course of the main criminal proceedings or if no prejudgment is involved), including the decisions to restrict a detainee's correspondence and family visits.

The authorities submitted an example of a court’s decision quashing an investigators decision to reject a detainee’s requests for family visits and telephone calls.

• Assessment. This measure and its implementation in practice are welcomed.

• However, in order to determine whether the remedy provided by this legislation is available not only in theory but also in practice according to the Convention requirements, relevant further examples of domestic courts’ case-law are awaited, in particular those concerning investigators’ decisions restricting family visits and correspondence.

5) Publication and dissemination: The judgment has been disseminated among the senior officials; the regional departments of the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences; regional courts; regional prosecutors’ offices.

The judgment of the European Court has been sent out for implementation to the Prosecutor General's Office, to the Supreme Court, to the Federal Penitentiary Service and to the Ministry of the Interior. It has also been sent out for information to the Constitutional Court of Russia and to the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of Russia in the Central Federal Circuit.

By letter of 2/03/2009 the acting Director of the Federal Penitentiary Service also sent out the judgment of the European Court to the departments of the Federal Penitentiary Service.

By another letter the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia sent out the judgment to the regional courts of general jurisdiction.

• Information is awaited on publication of the judgment of the European Court.

                       - 2 cases concerning injustified restriction of the right to liberty of movement

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

These cases concern the restriction of the applicants' right to liberty of movement in that on 27/01/2000 and on 19/06/1999 respectively they had not been permitted to enter Kabardino-Balkaria from the Chechen Republic because of their Chechen ethnic origin. In the Gartukayev case, the restriction was imposed by an Instruction issued by the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria in breach of domestic law, namely the Liberty of Movement Law (No. 52-42-I of 25/06/93). In the Timishev case, the restriction, while based on the Police Act (Section 11(22)) which allows the police to limit the liberty of movement in the public interest, resulted from an oral instruction of the Deputy Head of the Public Safety Police. The European Court considered in both cases that these restrictions were not in accordance with the law (violations of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

In the Timishev case, the European Court also considered that the impugned restriction was solely based on the applicant's Chechen origin and thus could not be objectively justified in democratic society (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol 4).

Finally, the Timishev case concerns the authorities' refusal to admit the applicant's children to school on the ground that the applicant was no longer a resident in the town of Nalchik, since he had to surrender his migrant's card, a local document confirming his residence in Nalchik, in exchange for compensation for the property he lost in the Chechen Republic. The European court recalled the absolute nature of the right to education and noted that Russian law admitted no residence qualification in this respect (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: Both applicants were able to cross the border on the days they were stopped, by going through different check-points.

Regarding the Timishev case, The Russian authorities have indicated that the applicant's children have been admitted to Municipal School No. 28 in Nalchik. As regards registration as a resident in Nalchik, no request in this respect has been made by the applicant, either to the local department of the Federal migration service or to the Ministry of the Interior.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 2 of Protocol 4 and Article 14: In response to a question raised by the Secretariat, the Russian authorities have provided extensive information regarding the current state of Russian legislation and the measures taken, in particular to improve in-service training, to prevent new, similar violations.

• This information is currently being assessed by the Secretariat.

            2) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol 1: The government declared before the Court that the Russian Education Act guaranteed the right to education irrespective of the place of residence (§62 of the judgment).

            3) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court was sent out to all authorities concerned, in particular:

- all prosecutors, by letter from the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation;

- all regional and municipal departments of the Ministry of Education and Science and education institutions, by letter from the Federal service for supervision in the field of education and science of 24/07/2006 No. 01‑678/07-01 drawing their attention to the illegality of including in the list of documents to be presented by parents to the school authorities of the registration certificate delivered by the organs of the Ministry of the Interior. This letter is also available on the Federal service web site www.obrnadzor.gov.ru <http://www.obrnadzor.gov.ru>;

- all Heads of territorial departments of the Federal migration service by letter from the Head of the Directorate of migrants and refugees of 24/07/2006 No. MD-3/13605;

- the Ministry of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic by letter from the Director of the Department for Road Safety of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation, instructing him to make the European Court's judgments a part of in-service training.

The Timishev judgment was published in the Bulletin of the European Court (Russian version) in 2006, No. 10.

55565/00           Bartik, judgment of 21/12/2006, final on 21/03/2007

The case concerns the restriction of the applicant's liberty of movement due to the authorities' refusal to authorise him to travel abroad for private purposes for a total of twenty years on the sole ground that he had access to classified information (“state secrets”) during his professional career.

The European Court found that an unqualified restriction on the applicant's right to travel abroad imposed by the Act on the Procedure for Entering and Leaving the Russian Federation for a considerable period of time was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

Individual measures: The restriction on the applicant's right to leave the country expired on 14/08/2001. The applicant now resides in the United States of America. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage he sustained. The applicant informed the Secretariat that he had paid tax in the United States on the sums awarded for just satisfaction and for costs and expenses. This information has been transmitted to the authorities.

General measures: The European Court pointed out that the Russian Federation, when it acceded to the Council of Europe, undertook to abolish the restriction on international travel for private purposes (§50 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 31/03/2007 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs submitted to the government a report on the results of the consideration of citizens’ complaints concerning the restriction of their right to leave the country by a special inter-agency commission in 2006. It has also been proposed to set up a special working group with view to bringing the relevant legislation in line with the requirements of the Convention.

After considering this report, the government decided to submit the issue of improving Russian legislation to the Inter-agency Commission on the Protection of State Secrets created on 6/10/2004 by the Presidential Decree No.1286.

In August 2007 this commission instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to submit to the Federal Security Service concrete proposals concerning the amendments to the legislative and regulatory framework governing the right of citizens who have access to state secrets to travel abroad.

In the meantime, these proposals are being examined by a special working group set up within the Inter-agency Commission on the Protection of State Secrets.

In addition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepared an analysis of similar legislation and practices in a number of other countries. In September 2007, this analysis was also submitted to the Federal Security Service.

• Information is awaited on the progress of the activities of the special working group created within the Interagency Commission on the Protection of State Secrets.

On 21/11/2007 the judgment was sent out to all courts, together with a letter from the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

• Information is awaited on the publication of the judgment of the European Court.

14139/03           Bolat, judgment of 05/10/2006, final on 05/01/2007[83]

42086/05           Liu and Liu, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 02/06/2008[84]

1509/02            Tatishvili, judgment of 22/02/2007, final on 09/07/2007

The case concerns the unjustified interference with the right to liberty of movement of the applicant, a “former USSR national”, as the Passports Department at Filevsky Park Police Station in Moscow unlawfully refused to process her application for registration of her place of residence (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

The European Court also found that the manifestly deficient reasoning of the district court and its subsequent approval by the City court failed to fulfil the requirements of a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded to the applicant just satisfaction in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. The European Court also considered that the applicant, being a “former USSR national”, was lawfully present in Russia (§43 of the judgment).

However it appears from the European Court's judgment that the absence of residence registration prevented the applicant from exercising certain fundamental social rights, such as access to medical assistance, social security, old-age pension, the right to possess property, to marry, etc.(§44 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 11/09/2007 the applicant was registered at her place of residence in Moscow. On an unspecified date she was also granted citizenship of the Russian Federation on the basis of Article 13§1 of the Law of 28/11/1991 No. 1948-1 on the citizenship of the Russian Federation.

• Assessment: no further individual measure thus appears necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4: The European Court noted that the guidelines given by the Constitutional Court on implementing of the Regulations for registering residence, although binding, were disregarded by the authorities in this particular case (§ 53 of the judgment).

The Russian authorities indicated that the Law of 25/06/1993 on the right of Russian citizens to liberty of movement and freedom to choose the place of temporary and permanent residence within the Russian Federation and its implementing Regulations, adopted by the government on 17/07/1995, were currently subject to amendments. A draft law amending the Law of 25/06/1993 was made available to the Secretariat, which is assessing its compliance with the Convention’s requirements.

• Information is awaited on the progress of the draft law’s adoption. 

In addition, the Russian authorities have indicated that, in order to improve the registration procedures, the Federal Migration Service issued on 20/09/2007 an Order No. 208 approving an administrative Regulation on the services of the Federal Migration Service concerning the registration of Russian citizens at their place of residence.

• A copy of this document would be useful.

2) Violation of Article 6§1: On 9/10/2007, the judgment of the European Court was sent out to all judges by a circular letter from the Deputy of the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It was also discussed during a working meeting with the judges of the Civil, Criminal and Military Chambers of the Supreme Court.

3) Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment: The Russian authorities have indicated that on 31/10/2007 the judgment of the European Court was sent out to territorial departments of Federal Migration Service by a circular letter from the Director of the Law department of Federal Migration Service.

The Russian authorities further indicated that on 28/02/2008, the judgment was sent out to all territorial departments of Ministry of Home Affairs and to the Director of Federal Migration Service by a circular letter from the Deputy of the Minister of Home Affairs of the Russian Federation.

2512/04            Nolan and K., judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 06/07/2009

The case concerns numerous violations of the Convention linked to the first applicant’s expulsion from Russia. The first applicant, a United States citizen, had sole custody of his eleven-month-old son (the second applicant). He was a member of the Unification Church founded by Sun Myung Moon and had been living in Russia on a renewable one-year visa since 1994.

In May 2002, the first applicant travelled to Cyprus, leaving his son behind in the care of a nanny. On his return to Russia, he was taken aside by passport control officers at Moscow Airport and locked overnight in a small room. After being told that his visa had been cancelled and he would not be allowed to re-enter the country, he left on a flight to Estonia. A month later he was again denied entry to Russia without explanation after trying to re-enter on a new multiple-entry visa. A challenge to the decision to refuse him entry was dismissed by a regional court on national security grounds on the basis of a classified report issued in February 2002 by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB).

The regional court further found that the Russian authorities had not prevented the first applicant from being reunited with his son in a country other than Russia and that his overnight stay at the airport did not amount to privation of liberty. An appeal by the first applicant to the Supreme Court was dismissed. He was reunited with his son in April 2003, when the boy’s nanny brought him to Ukraine.

The European Court considered that the exclusion of the applicant from Russian territory was designed to repress the exercise of his right to freedom of religion. The Court noted that in January 2000 the Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation was modified as follows: “Guaranteeing the national security of Russia also extends to opposing the negative influence of foreign religious organisations and missionaries”

It found that there had been no evidence in the domestic proceedings to show that it was necessary to ban the applicant from entering Russia. Counsel for the FSB had not made any specific submissions on the factual circumstances underlying the findings in its report and the domestic courts had not reviewed whether the conclusion that the applicant constituted a danger to national security had a reasonable basis in fact (violation of Article 9).

The court also found violations of:

-           Article 5§1 due to the absence of legal justification for the first applicant’s being deprived of his freedom for a night in the transit hall of Moscow airport;

-           Article 5§5, as the first applicant had been denied an enforceable right to compensation by the national courts’ finding that he had not been deprived of his liberty;

-           Article 8 due to the first applicant’s ten-month physical separation from his infant son as a direct consequence of the decision to exclude him from Russia combined with the failure to notify him of that decision and to take measures to enable his son to leave Russia;

-           Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, as there were no evidences that the exception provided in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 was applicable in the first applicant’s case and that the normal procedure set out in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 was deficient in three respects: the time taken to inform the applicant of the decision to expel him (more than three months), his inability to submit reasons opposing his expulsion and the denial of a review of his case with the participation of counsel; and

-           Article 38 § 1 due to the authorities’ refusal to submit to the European Court a copy of the FSB report which was apparently at the origin of Mr Nolan’s expulsion, on the ground that Russian law provides no procedure for communicating secret information to international organisations.

• An action plan/action report is still awaited.

                       - 8 cases concerning extradition[85]

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 and of 04/11/2010, possibly final on 04/02/2011

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

21851/03           Bezymyannaya, judgment of 22/12/2009, final on 22/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court for the determination of her civil claims in that domestic courts declined jurisdiction over her case. The applicant sought to invalidate a property contract, first before a court of general jurisdiction. This court however declined its jurisdiction and transferred the case to a commercial court which also subsequently declined its jurisdiction.

The European Court found that the applicant had been locked in a vicious circle in which national courts were indicating each other and refusing to hear her case in view of alleged limitations on their judicial powers (violation of Article 6§1).

• An action plan/action report is still awaited.

14085/04           Smirnov Sergey, judgment of 22/12/2009, final on 22/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to court for the determination of his civil claims, in that access was denied him on the ground that he did not have a fixed or registered abode. The domestic courts considered that the fact that he indicated an address for correspondence instead was not enough for them to entertain his claims.

The European Court found that in doing so, the Russian courts demonstrated excessive and unjustified formalism by insisting that the applicant indicate his place of residence, a requirement that was known to be impossible in his situation. The European Court concluded that there had been an unreasonable construction of a procedural requirement which prevented the applicant’s claims being examined on the merits (violation of Article 6§1).

• An action plan/action report is still awaited.

7672/03            Ponomarev, judgment of 15/05/2008, final on 15/08/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to access to a court due to domestic courts’ failure to examine his allegation that he had been infected with tuberculosis while detained on remand (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover lost wages and to obtain compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention. He also claimed damages for his alleged contamination while in detention. The first-instance court held that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been lawful but did not pronounce upon the alleged contamination.

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

• Applicant’s submissions. On 23/12/2009 the applicant submitted information according to which his claim for compensation for the alleged infection had been considered on the merits. The claim was rejected by the judgment of the Vorkuta Town Court of 29/06/2009 as upheld by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 20/08/2009.

On 23/07/2010 the applicant’s submission was transmitted to the authorities for comments.

• The authorities reply is awaited.

General measures: The Russian authorities have indicated that the judgment was sent by the Russian Government Agent to the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the President of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, to the President of the Supreme Commercial (Arbitration) Court of the Russian Federation and to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in North-Western district.

The judgment was also sent out with a circular letter from the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to all courts. According to the information provided by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, the judgment was discussed at a meeting with judges of the Republic. Their attention was drawn to their obligation resulting from the Convention as interpreted by the European Court while considering claims submitted to them.

• Information is awaited on the publication of the judgment of the European Court in Russian.

- 17 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

11583/05           Zaytseva, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

These cases concern the violation of the applicants' right to a fair trial due to the belated issue of a summons, in breach of domestic law, denying them the possibility of being present. The European Court noted that the domestic courts had failed to examine whether the applicants had been duly summonsed with a view to adjourning the case if appropriate (violations of Article 6§1).

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

            1) Mokrushina case: As regards the Mokrushina case, the supervisory review proceedings initiated by the applicant following the European Court's judgment are currently pending before the Moscow City Court.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of these proceedings.

            2) Batsanina case: On 27/07/2010 the applicant lodged a submission with regard to individual measures. According to the applicant, her request for reopening of the proceedings has been rejected twice by a simple letter, in which she was instructed to lodge a supervisory-review application. On 24/09/2010 the applicant’s letter was transmitted to the authorities for comments.

• The authorities’ reply is awaited.

            3) Zaytseva case:

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The authorities indicated that on 12/04/2010 the applicant requested the reopening of proceedings following the judgment of the European Court but her application was rejected by the Oktyabrskiy district court. The applicant is now challenging this decision.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of these proceedings.

            4) Other cases

• Information is awaited as to whether the other applicants have requested reopening following the European Court's judgments.

General measures: These cases present similarities, for example, to those of Groshev and Yakovlev closed following diffusion measures and the issue of circular letters drawing courts’ attention to these cases (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)17).

The European Court found that the relevant provisions of domestic law were not, in themselves, incompatible with the fair trial guarantees set out in Article 6§1, but that the courts had not applied them properly in these cases. In view of the constantly increasing number of similar cases, additional measures appear to be necessary.

The Mokrushina judgment was sent out to all courts by a letter of a Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. A general discussion on the issues raised by this judgment was planned on 11/10/2007 within the Supreme Court.

• Information is awaited on practical arrangements made to ensure that parties to proceedings are summonsed in due time and on how the traceability of summonses is ensured.

• Information is also awaited on whether judges are under any obligation to examine the reasons for parties' failure to appear and the procedural steps to be taken in such cases.

44009/05          Shtukaturov, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 27/06/2008 and of 04/03/2010, final on 04/06/2010[86]

33307/02           Galich, judgment of 13/05/2008, final on 26/01/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial due to the fact that the appeal court reduced the amount of the statutory interest awarded to him without hearing the parties’ submissions (violation of Article 6§1).

Article 333 of the Civil Code as interpreted by Joint Ruling adopted by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Commercial Court No. 13/14 of 8/10/1998 vests courts with discretionary power to reduce the amount of interest in line with the real losses suffered by the creditor. In the applicant's case, the first-instance court did not apply Article 333. Neither of the parties to the proceedings raised this issue at the appeal stage. The European Court found that by depriving the parties of an opportunity to be heard on the issue which involved a complex assessment of questions of fact, the appeal court failed to exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the Convention's requirements (violation of Article 6§1).

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

The applicant's request for reopening of the appeal proceedings due to newly discovered circumstances was rejected by the appeal court (the Omsk Regional Court) on 30/08/2008. The appeal court referred to the fact that in the Code of Civil Procedure (Article 392), judgments of the European Court are not mentioned in the list of the grounds for reopening due to newly discovered circumstances. The applicant's appeal against that decision was not considered on the merits (decision of the Omsk Regional Court of 12/11/2008) on the grounds that no appeal can be lodged against a decision of an appeal court.

On 26/02/2010 the Constitutional Court issued a judgment, according to which Article 392 of the Code allows domestic courts to reopen cases on ground of newly discovered circumstances following a judgment of the European Court.

• Information is thus awaited as to whether the applicant may still resubmit his request for reopening and whether he could challenge the decision of the Omsk Regional Court of 30/08/2008 by which his previous request for reopening had been rejected.

General measures: It would appear that the violation was due to the practice of domestic courts which, when applying Article 333 of the Civil Code, do not invite the parties to the proceedings to present their arguments in this respect.

• Information is thus awaited on measures taken to prevent further similar violations.

The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Presidents of the Supreme Court, Supreme Arbitration Court and the Constitutional Court, and has also been sent out to regional courts of general jurisdiction.

• Information is awaited on the publication of the European Court's judgment, in view of the direct effect the European Court's judgments should have, so that parties to the civil proceedings and not only courts should be informed about it.

- 2 cases mainly concerning the presumption of innocence[87]

13470/02           Khuzhin and others, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

28245/04           Mokhov, judgment of 04/03/2010, final on 04/06/2010

- 2 cases mainly concerning the authorities’ failure to ensure the imprisoned applicants’ participation in civil proceedings[88]

78145/01           Kovalev, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

23243/03           Sokur, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

- 6 cases mainly concerning courts’ refusal to accept the testimony of defence witnesses in proceedings leading to the applicants’ conviction

41461/02           Romanov Vladimir, judgment of 24/08/2008, final on 26/01/2009

13769/04           Makeyev, judgment of 05/02/2009, final on 05/05/2009

23610/03           Melnikov, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010

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

1111/02            Trofimov, judgment of 4/12/2008, final on 4/03/2009

All these cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the applicants had a proper and adequate opportunity to question key witnesses against them (violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)).

The Vladimir Romanov case also concerns ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant on 22/06/2001 in detention facility IZ-37/1 and the lack of an effective investigation in this respect (violation of Article 3).

The Melnikov case also concerns poor conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in Tver remand centre No. 69/1 from 24/11/2003 to 8/12/2004 (violation of Article 3).

The Polufakin and Chernyshev case also concerns poor conditions of the first applicant’s detention in the correctional facility UE-148/5 in Sviyazhsk, the Tatarstan Republic (violation of Article 3).

Individual measures: In all cases the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, except in the Trofimov case in which the applicant did not submit such claim.

            1) Vladimir Romanov case

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 20/01/2010 the Supreme Court reopened the proceedings in the applicant’s case following the European Court’s judgment and decided that there was no ground to quash the applicant’s conviction and to order a new examination of the applicant’s case.

• This information is being assessed by the Secretariat.

• Information is awaited on the measures taken following the applicant’s ill-treatment in detention.

            2) Makeyev case

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 18/11/2010 the Supreme Court reopened the proceedings in the applicant’s case following the European Court’s judgment, quashed the domestic judgments delivered in the applicant’s case and sent the case for a fresh examination.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of the reopened proceedings.

            3) Melnikov case

• Information is awaited on whether the applicant requested the reopening of proceedings.

            4) Polufakin and Chernyshov case

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The applicant did not lodge any application following the European Court’s judgment, at least until 23/04/2009 (letter from the Supreme Court). On 13/05/2009, the Supreme Court, acting on the request of its President, reopened the proceedings in the applicant’s case following the European Court’s judgment, quashed the domestic judgments delivered in the applicant’s case and sent the case for a fresh examination.

• Information is thus awaited on the circumstances of the reopening and on the outcome of the reopened proceedings.

            5) Polyakov case

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The applicant did not lodge any application following the European Court’s judgment, at least until 31/08/2009 (letter from the Supreme Court). On 28/04/2010 the Supreme Court, acting on the request of its President, reopened the proceedings in the applicant’s case following the European Court’s judgment, quashed the domestic judgments delivered in the applicant’s case and sent the case for a fresh examination.

• Information is thus awaited on the circumstances of the reopening and on the outcome of the reopened proceedings.

            6) Trofimov case

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 21/10/2009 the Supreme Court reopened the proceedings in the applicant’s case following the European Court’s judgment, quashed the domestic judgments delivered in the applicant’s case and sent the case for a fresh examination.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of the reopened proceedings.

General measures:

1) Failure to secure the attendance of witnesses

Action plan/action report is awaited.

            2) Ill-treatment in detention and lack of an effective investigation in this respect

General measures are examined in the Dedovskiy group (7178/03, Section 4.2).

            3) Poor conditions of pre-trial detention

General measures are examined in the Kalashnikov group of cases (47095/99, 1108th meeting, March 2011, for more details, see Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)35).

            4) Publication and dissemination

Information is awaited on the publication and dissemination of the judgments of the European Court.

6293/04            Mirilashvili, judgment of 11/12/2008, final on 05/06/2009

The case concerns the unfairness of the criminal proceedings which resulted in the applicant’s being convicted in November 2003 and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for organising the abduction of several people who had been implicated in the kidnapping of his father. The conviction was mainly based on witness statements, experts’ opinions and material evidence, such as audio-tapes and documents.

As regards the recordings of telephone conversations, the domestic courts refused to disclose to the defence the documents authorising the wiretapping, on the ground that the Operational and Search Activities Act of 1995 prohibited in absolute terms the disclosure of documents relating to operational and search activities. This Act considerably limits the judge’s role, since he is not allowed to analyse whether those materials would have been of any assistance to the defence, and whether their disclosure would have harmed any identifiable public interest. This being so, the European Court found that the decision to withhold materials relating to the surveillance operation was not accompanied by adequate procedural guarantees and, furthermore, was not sufficiently justified.

As regards the testimony of key witnesses no longer present in Russia, the domestic courts refused to admit written statements from them obtained by the defence. In these statements, the witnesses retracted the testimony they had previously given to the prosecution. The domestic courts considered that the law prohibited defence lawyers from questioning witnesses after they had been questioned by the prosecution and outside of the “proper” procedure of collecting of evidence prescribed by law. The European Court concluded that, in the particular circumstances of the case, where the applicant was unable to examine several key witnesses in court or at least at the pre-trial stage, such refusal was not justified.

The Court therefore considered that the proceedings in question, taken as a whole, had not satisfied the requirements of a “fair hearing” since the defence was placed at a serious disadvantage vis-à-vis the prosecution in respect of the examination of a very important part of the evidence (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: It transpires from the European Court’s judgment that the applicant is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in the region of Orenburg.

At the 1078th meeting (March 2010), the Russian authorities provided information on the outcome of the proceedings reopened in the applicant’s case following the European Court’s judgment.

• This information is being assessed.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Prosecutor General’s Office, to the military court of the Leningrad district, to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation, to the Investigating Committee with the Prokuratura of the Russian Federation and the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the North Western district.

On 28/08/2009, the judgment accompanied by a letter of the Vice-President of the Supreme Court, President of the Military Chamber, was sent to all military courts.

On 20/08/2009, the judgment was disseminated, by a circular letter of the Main Military Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, to all military prosecutors.

On 18/08/2009, the judgment was sent together with a letter of Deputy Head of the Investigating Committee with the Prokuratura to all its regional departments.

On 4/09/2009, the judgment was sent by a circular letter of the Deputy Head of the Investigating Committee of the Ministry of the Interior to all its regional departments.

• Information is awaited on the publication of the judgment, translated into Russian as well as on other possible measures to prevent new, similar violations.

3891/03            Samokhvalov, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that an appeal hearing was held by Kurgan Regional Court on 1/07/2002 (date of entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure) in the applicant’s absence. The appeal court failed to verify whether the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing and of the steps to be taken in order to participate in it (violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3 (c).

7025/04            Pishchalnikov, judgment of 24/09/2009, final on 24/12/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trail and to prepare his defence, as he was denied legal assistance at the initial stage of police questioning (violation of Article 6§3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6§1).

The European Court noted first that, as soon as he was arrested, the applicant had asked sufficiently clearly for a specific lawyer to represent him. The authorities did not contact the lawyer specified, nor offered free legal assistance. Instead they interrogated him intensely in the first few days after his arrest, in the absence of a lawyer, in an effort to produce evidence helpful to the prosecution case. The confessions he had made subsequently proved decisive for his conviction.

The Court was moreover not convinced that the applicant had fully realised the consequences of subsequently waiving his right to legal representation. While the evidence collected suggested that he had systematically refused counsel, it had been unexplainable that during purely formal, procedural investigative steps the applicant had always been assisted by legal aid counsel, while he had usually refused legal assistance when he had to answer the investigators’ questions. Furthermore, after the applicant had been assisted by legal aid counsel on a mandatory basis and had been interrogated in counsel’s presence, he had denied the confessions he had made to the investigators during the two days after his arrest.

Consequently, the Court found that the lack of legal assistance to the applicant at the initial stages of police questioning had irreversibly affected his defence rights and undermined the possibility of a fair trial

The case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The European Court observed that the proceedings had lasted approximately four years and eight months for two levels of jurisdiction and that there had been substantial periods of inactivity attributable to the domestic authorities and for which the government had not submitted any satisfactory explanation (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Court reiterated that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested. The Court noted, in this connection, that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: At the 1078th meeting (March 2010), the Russian authorities indicated that the applicant had not so far requested the reopening of proceedings.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Prosecutor General's Office, to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office, to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Ural Federal District. It has also been sent out to regional courts of general jurisdiction and regional prosecutors’ offices, as well as to the departments of the Interior Ministry. It was discussed at a meeting of the judges of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court.

• Information is awaited on publication of the judgment in Russian and on other possible measures to prevent new similar violations.

- 4 cases concerning failure to appoint a legal-aid lawyer at the appeal stage

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

20075/03           Shilbergs, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

40631/02           Timergaliyev, judgment of 14/10/2008, final on 14/01/2009

These cases concern unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants due to appeal courts' failure to appoint them a lawyer (violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3 (c)).

The European Court noted that the appeal courts had the power to review the cases and consider additional arguments which had not been examined in the first-instance proceedings.

Moreover, the Court noted that according to Russian legislation, it was incumbent on the judicial authorities to appoint a lawyer for the applicant at each stage of the proceedings even though he had not requested it. However, no attempt had been made to appoint a lawyer or to adjourn the appeal hearing in order to secure the presence of a lawyer.

In the case of Shulepov the Court also noted that the applicant appeared before the appeal court by videoconference from prison, while the prosecutor was personally present in the courtroom.

The European Court considered that the interests of justice demanded that, in order to have a fair hearing, in these cases the applicants should have benefited from legal representation at the appeal hearings.

The Shilbergs case also concerns poor detention conditions at the temporary holding facility and at the remand centre (violation of Article 3) and breach of the equality-of-arms principle on account of the domestic courts’ repeated refusal to grant him leave to appear in civil proceedings initiated by the applicant while in detention (violation of Article  6§1).

Individual measures:

            1) Shulepov case: The European Court granted just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment and is currently serving his sentence. The European Court indicated in its judgment that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested. It noted, in this connection, that Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides for reopening of criminal proceedings following the finding of a violation by the European Court.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The applicant has not requested the reopening of the proceedings.

• Information is awaited as to whether the authorities have informed the applicant of this possibility.

            2) Potapov case: The European Court granted just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 16/10/2001 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment. The European Court indicated in its judgment that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings, if requested.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities:  On 14/04/2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed previous judgments delivered in the applicant's case and remitted the case for fresh examination. In the meantime, the Supreme Court, given the gravity of the charges and the risk of absconding represented by the applicant, remanded him in custody until 14/07/2010.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of the new proceedings.

            3) Shilbergs case: The European Court granted just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 5/09/2002 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicant has requested the reopening of proceedings and whether the authorities informed the applicant of this possibility.

            4) Timergaliyev case: The applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction. On 5/12/2001 he was convicted and sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment in a high-security colony.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 3/02/2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed all previous judgments delivered in the applicant's case and remitted the case for fresh examination following the judgment of the European Court. In the meantime, the Supreme Court, given the gravity of charges and the risk of absconding represented by the applicant, ordered his pre-trial detention until 3/05/2010.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of the new proceedings.

General measures:

1) Failure to secure the participation of a defence counsel in the appeal proceedings: It results from the judgment that Article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes a list of situations in which the participation of counsel is mandatory (e.g. the accused faces serious charges, carrying a term of imprisonment exceeding fifteen years, life imprisonment). Counsel is appointed by the investigator or court if the accused has not retained a lawyer.

The scope of application of this provision with regard to appellate proceedings was further clarified by decisions of the Constitutional Court delivered after the events at issue.

According to the position of the Constitutional Court, free legal assistance for appellate proceedings should be provided on the same conditions as during the earlier stages in the proceedings and is mandatory in situations listed in Article 51. It further underlined the obligation of courts to secure participation of defence counsel in appeal proceedings (see, for example, judgment of 27/03/1996 no. 8-П; seven decisions of 08/02/2007; decision of 23/09/2010 no. 1146-О-О/2010 etc.).

• Information would be useful on measures taken or planned to prevent further similar violations, via, for example, effective implementation of the aforementioned decisions of the Constitutional Court.

Publication and dissemination:

- Shulepov case: the judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Presidents of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, to the General Prosecutor, to the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of Russia in the Ural Federal Circuit, and also to regional courts of general jurisdiction. The judgment has been studied at a seminar in the Supreme Court.

- Potapov case: the judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Presidents of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, to the General Prosecutor, and also to regional courts of general jurisdiction and regional prosecutors' offices.

• Information is awaited on the targeted dissemination (except of the judgments in the cases of Shulepov and Potapov) and publication of each of the four judgments of the European Court.

            2) Poor detention conditions in the Shilbergs case: This issue is being examined in the Kalashnikov group of cases (47095/99, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

            3) Failure to grant the applicant leave to appear in civil proceedings initiated by the applicant while in detention in the Shilbergs case: This issue is being examined in the Kovalev group of cases (78145/01, Section 4.2).

- 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

These cases concern violation of the applicants’ right to be informed in detail of the nature of the accusation against them and their right to have adequate time for the preparation of their defence due to the redefinition of the charges brought against them by the appeal court at a very late stage in proceedings (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3 a) and b)).

The Abramyan case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the examination of the applicant’s case on appeal in the absence of the applicant and his counsel (violation of Article 6§1).

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

            1) Seliverstov case: Although in October 2001 the appeal court redefined the charges brought against the applicant, it upheld the three years and six months’ prison term decided by the first-instance court.

It remains unclear whether the applicant continues to suffer serious negative consequences of the violation found not adequately remedied by the just satisfaction.

• Information would be useful in this respect.

            2) Abramyan case

• Information is awaited on whether the applicant has requested the reopening of proceedings.

General measures:

            1) Violation of the right to a fair trial due to the requalification of the charges

The new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in 2002.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (June 2009): The relevant legislation only allows requalification of an offence to the accused’s benefit. The Seliverstov judgment was sent to the President of the Supreme Court and sent out to lower courts. The judgment was discussed at a meeting of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

• Information is thus awaited on measures to prevent new similar violations.

            2) Violation of the right to a fair trial due to the absence of the applicant and his counsel at the appeal hearing: General measures are being examined in context of the Samokhvalov case (3891/03, Section 4.2).

- 2 cases concerning entrapment and undercover agents

53203/99          Vanyan, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006

59696/00          Khudobin, judgment of 26/10/2006, final on 26/01/2007

The cases concern unfairness of the criminal proceedings in that the applicants were convicted of offences they had been incited by the police to commit (violations of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that there was nothing to suggest that the offences would have been committed had it not been for the intervention of police undercover agents. The use of the resultant evidence in the ensuing criminal proceedings against the applicants irremediably undermined the fairness of the trial.

The Vanyan case also concerns a breach of the principle of equality of arms in that the supervisory review hearing took place in the applicant’s absence (violation of Article 6§1 in conjuction with Article 6§3c). The case of Khudobin also concerns inadequate medical treatment of the applicant in the detention facility (violation of Article 3); absence of reasons for extending the applicant's detention or dismissing several applications for release lodged by the defense (violation of Article 5§3) and consideration of the applicant’s appeals with delay and failure to examine one of the appeals (violation of Article 5 § 4).

Individual measures: The European Court award just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage in both cases.

The applicants are entitled under Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to apply for re-opening of proceedings in their cases on the ground of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court. No claims have been lodged by the applicants since then.

• Information is awaited on whether the applicants have been informed about their right to request reopening of the proceedings and whether they used this right.

General measures:

            1) Gathering of evidence through undercover agents:

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The Russian authorities consider that the violation in this case was due to the lack of an updated procedure for submitting to investigating authorities the results of operational search activities and to the loopholes in the legislation governing such activities. These shortcomings were remedied through the adoption of the following measures:

- Legislative measures: By Federal Law of 24/07/2007 No211-FZ On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation aiming at the improvement of state regulation in the prevention of extremist activities, two additional paragraphs were added to paragraph 8 of Section 5 of the Federal Law of 12/08/1995 No144-FZ On operational search activities. According to these amendments, organs in charge of operational search activities (or their officials) may not incite, instigate or impell someone directly or indirectly to commit unlawful actions (provocation), or falsify the results of operational search activities.

- Regulatory measures: On 17/04/2007, after consultations with the General Prosecutor's office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued interministerial Order No 368/185/164/481/32/184/97/147 approving an Instruction on the procedures according to which the results of operational search activities should be submitted to the investigating authority.

- Measures taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: On 15/06/2006, the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted Ruling No. 14 on judicial practice concerning offences related to drugs and other powerful and poisonous substances. Point 14 provides that if it results from the case-file submitted to the court that a purchase-test was carried out, the courts should bear in mind that in order to be lawful, this purchase-test should have been ordered on the grounds provided by Section 7 of the Federal Law On operational search activities and complied with the requirements provided by paragraph 7 of Section 8. This paragraph specifies that a purchase-test shall be carried out on the basis of a decision approved by the head of the organ in charge of operational search activities.

This Ruling also specifies that the results of the purchase-test may only be taken into account for the verdict if they show that the criminal intent of the accused was formed independently of the actions of the police officers and if they are accompanied by evidence showing that the accused person has carried out all preparatory actions with a view to committing an offence.

• Assessment: The Ruling of the Supreme Court should be particularly welcomed. As regards legislative and regulatory changes, it remains unclear how the measures mentioned will contribute to preventing new, similar violations of the Convention. Indeed, it would appear that in this case the violation was not due to the fact that the purchase-test was carried out without authorisation of the head of the relevant investigating body, as required by Section 8 of Operational Search Activities Act. The European Court rather found a violation of the Convention because Russian legislation did not specify any precondition to meet for such an authorisation (see in particular §49 of the judgment).

• Information is therefore awaited on the circumstances in which the head of the relevant investigating body may authorise a purchase-test, in particular on whether there must be preconditions, i.e. reasons to suspect that the person concerned may be, for example, a drug dealer and on whether these reasons should be specified in the authorisation. Information is also awaited on the circumstances in which persons concerned may challenge such authorisation before the courts and/or the admissibility of evidence collected against them through the purchase-test. The authorities may also wish to envisage the introduction of additional guarantees with regard to other techniques listed in the Law, including the use of undercover agents. In so doing, they might take into account the experience of other countries that solved such problems to comply with the Court's judgments (see Resolution ResDH(2001)12 in the case Teixeira de Castro against Portugal).

            2) Supervisory review procedure in the Vanyan case: the issue is examined in the Stanislav Zhukov group of cases (54632/00, Section 4.2).

3) Inadequate medical treatment of the applicant in the detention facility in the Khudobin case: the measures are examined in the Popov case (26853/04, Section 4.2).

4) absence of reasons for extending the applicant's detention and consideration of the applicant’s appeals with delay and failure to examine one of the in the Khudobin case: the measures are examined in the Klyakhin group of cases (46082/99, Section 4.2).

            5) Publication and dissemination: By letter from the Russian Government Agent, the Vanyan judgment was disseminated to the Minister of Internal Affairs and to the President of the Supreme Court with a view to taking individual and general measures to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment was sent out by the General Prosecutor's office to all its departments so they might bear it in mind in their daily practice.

The judgment was also included in the training programmes of the General Prosecutor's office and of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The Government Agent also disseminated the judgment to the President of the Constitutional Court and to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Central federal district, for information and for use in daily practice.

• Information is therefore awaited on publication of the judgments and on dissemination of the judgment in the Khudobin case.

- 6 cases concerning the failure to summons the accused in criminal supervisory-review proceedings

54632/00          Zhukov Stanislav, judgment of 12/10/2006, final on 12/01/2007

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

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

3950/02            Tarasov Anatoliy, judgment of 18/02/2010, final on 18/05/2010

These cases concern a breach of the principle of equality of arms in that the Presidia of the Supreme Court and of Moscow City Court determined the applicants' cases in the absence of the applicants and their counsels. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of 1960 then in force, the question of whether to summons the applicant and his counsel was left to the court's discretion (violation of Article 6§1 or in conjuction with Article 6§3c).

The cases of Alekseyenko and Anatoliy Tarasov also concern right to correspondence, including correspondence with the European Court (violations of Article 8).

Individual measures: In the cases of Zhukov and Sharomov no just satisfaction has been awarded. In the case of Fedorov the European awarded non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. In all the other cases the Court awarded non-pecuniary damage.

The applicants are entitled under Article 413 of the CCP to apply for re-opening of proceedings in their cases on the ground of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court. 

• Information is awaited on whether the authorities informed the applicant about such a possibility.

General measures:

            1) Supervisory review procedure: The law amending the CCP entered into force on 14/03/2009, introducing the right of the convicted person to be present at the supervisory review hearing (Article 407).

• This information is being assessed by the Secretariat.

2) Right to correpondence: It would appear that a number of measures have been adopted by the Russian authorities to prevent new, similar violations (see the Nurmagomedov case, 30138/02, Section 6.2). However, the violation described in these judgments occurred notwithstanding the adoption of these measures.

• Information is thus awaited on measures taken or planned to prevent further similar violations.

- 4 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

6945/04            Ilatovskiy, judgment of 09/07/2009, final on 09/10/2009

5433/02            Shabanov and Tren, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2007

These cases concern unlawful composition of the Russian courts in 2000 due to the authorities' failure to observe the provisions of the Lay Judges Act. This law requires local elected authorities to establish a list of lay judges from which judges are selected at random to sit for a maximum term of two weeks. Accordingly the European Court considered that the courts which tried the applicants' cases were not “established by law” (violations of Article 6§1).

The Fedotova case also concerns a violation of the applicant's right of individual petition since investigations into the tax affairs of the applicant's lawyer and translator were initiated and that the regional police, rather than the competent tax authorities questioned them in particular about their relationship with the applicant. The European Court found an interference with the exercise of the applicant's right of individual petition, as this investigation was initiated after the applicant had submitted to the European Court her claim for just satisfaction and in relation to the documents she submitted in this respect (violation of Article 34).

Individual measures:

            1) Shabanov and Tren case

• According to the Russian authorities, the applicants have lodged no appeal following the European Court's judgment.

            2) Fedotova case

• Applicant’s submissions: On 09/05/2010 Ms Fedotova informed the Committee of Ministers that she had requested the Taganrog Town Court to quash its decision of 02/10/2000 and its judgment of 16/10/2000 due to newly discovered circumstances. She referred to the judgment of the European Court of 13/04/2006, according to which the judgment of the Taganrog Town Court of 16/10/2000 was taken by an unlawful composition of court, and to the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Russia of 26/02/2010, according to which there should be a mechanism for reopening of cases following judgments of the European Court. On 21/04/2010 the Taganrog Town Court discontinued the civil proceedings on the grounds that the case-file had already been destroyed, and the District Court, in its decision of 24/03/2010 explained to the applicant that she might apply for reissue of the case-file, which she has not done; and also on the grounds that the respondent company had been liquidated in 2002.

On 2/09/2010 the applicant sent a judgment rejecting her claim for compensation for the violations found by the Court. She also indicated that the judgment was subject to appeal.

• The authorities’ response to the applicant’s submission is awaited.

            3) Barashkova case

• According to the Russian authorities, the applicant has lodged no appeal following the European Court's judgment.

            4) Ilatovskiy: The applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction.

At the 1086th meeting (June 2010), the Russian authorities indicated that the domestic proceedings had been reopened. The applicant was placed in detention on remand until 14/07/2010.

• Information is awaited on the applicant's current situation and on the outcome of the reopened proceedings.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 6§1: This case presents similarities to that of Posokhov (closed by Final Resolution ResDH(2004)46) in which the same issue was raised in relation to criminal proceedings. As far as civil proceedings are concerned, it appears that the institution of lay judges no longer exists, i.e. since the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure on 1/02/2003. Moreover, on 18/06/2004 the Constitutional Court rejected an application aiming at the restoration of lay judges in civil proceedings.

According to the Russian authorities, Federal Law of 02/01/2000 No. 37-FZ on lay judges of federal courts of general jurisdiction, as modified on 14/11/2002, lapsed as from 1/02/2003 with regard to civil proceedings following the entry into force of the Code of Civil Procedure.

According to Article 14 of this Code, civil cases are examined at first instance by a single judge or by a three professional judges if specifically provided by law.

            2) Violation of Article 34:

• Information is awaited on the rules currently governing the conduct of enquires into individuals' tax declarations, i.e. the circumstances in which such an inquiry may be initiated, the authorities in charge, the safeguards against arbitrariness, possible sanctions, etc. and on the measures taken or envisaged to prevent new similar violations of the Convention.

            3) Publication and dissemination: By a letter of the Russian Government Agent, the Fedotova judgment was disseminated to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and to the Ministry of the Interior. On 21/12/2006, the Fedotova judgment was sent out to all courts by a circular letter of the Deputy of the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The judgment was published in the Bulletin of the European Court (Russian edition), 2007, No. 2. Other judgments have also been sent out to all judges.

62936/00           Moiseyev, judgment of 09/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

The case concerns a number of violations related to the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant in 1999-2001 for high treason.

Conditions of the applicant's detention: The European Court found that they amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment because he was forced to live, sleep and use the toilet in poorly lit and ventilated cells with many other inmates for almost four years (violation of Article 3).

Conditions of transport to court: The European Court found that they amounted to inhuman treatment in view of the fact that he had been transported more than a hundred times in standard-issue prison vans, which had no heating and were often overcrowded, without food, drink or access to a toilet, on average, six hours per day and at times (during his trial or at hearings concerning the extension of his detention) when he needed his powers of concentration (violation of Article 3).

The applicant's pre-trial detention: The European Court considered that this detention was excessively lengthy because the domestic courts failed to justify its extension by reasons which could be regarded as sufficient (violation of Article 5§3).

Right to a prompt examination of the lawfulness of detention: The European court found that the Supreme Court had not examined the applicant’s appeals against two decisions, of September and December 2000 rejecting his requests to be freed, and had not promptly decided upon other appeals introduced by the applicant against the decisions of July 2001 (violations of Article 5§4).

Independence and impartiality of the trial court: The European Court noted that there were eleven replacements of the judges on the bench in the applicant’s case. The reasons for such replacements were only made known on two occasions. Article 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only mentioned the possibility of replacing a judge who was “no longer able to take part in the proceedings”, without setting out the circumstances in which such a replacement was possible or indeed required. Nor did this Article contain any procedural safeguards. In these circumstances, the European Court found that Russian criminal law failed to provide the guarantees that would have been sufficient to exclude any objective doubt as to the absence of inappropriate pressure on judges in the performance of their judicial duties (violation of Article 6§1).

Proceedings in criminal cases against the applicant: The European Court found that they were excessively long (violation of Article 6§1).

Unfairness of the proceedings: The Court found that the prosecuting authority had had unrestricted control in the matter of visits by counsel to the applicant and had been able to peruse the documents exchanged between them, which had the effect of giving the prosecution advance knowledge of the defence strategy and placed the applicant at a disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent.

The Court further found that access by the applicant and his defence team to the case-file and their own notes – which were kept in a special secret department of the detention facility and the Moscow City Court – had been so curtailed that these measures had effectively prevented them from using the information contained in them, since they had had to rely solely on their recollections. Finally, the Court considered that the suffering and frustration which the applicant must have felt on account of the inhuman conditions of transport and confinement had impaired his faculty for concentration and intense mental application in the hours immediately preceding the court hearings, when his ability to instruct his counsel effectively and to consult with them had been of primordial importance.

The cumulative effect of the conditions and the inadequacy of the available facilities had excluded any possibility for the applicant to prepare his defence in advance, especially taking into account that he could not consult the case-file or his notes in his cell. The overall effect of these difficulties, taken as a whole, had so restricted the rights of the defence that the principle of a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 was denied (violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c)).

The applicant’s right to receive family visits whilst in detention: The European Court found that the Custody Act (Federal Law on the Detention of Suspects and Defendants, No. 103-FZ of 15/07/1995) and the Internal Rules for Remand Centres fell short of the requirement of foreseeability as they conferred unfettered discretion on the investigator in this matter but did not define the circumstances in which a family visit could be refused. The provisions at issue only mentioned the possibility of refusing family visits, without saying anything about the duration of the measure or the reasons that might warrant its application. The European Court further found that the Custody Act restricted the maximum frequency of family visits to two per month in a general manner, without affording any degree of flexibility to determine whether such limitations were appropriate or indeed necessary in each individual case. The European Court found no reason for such stringent limitations and consequently held that the authorities failed to maintain a fair balance of proportionality between the means employed and the aim they sought to achieve. Finally, the European Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life on account of the separation of the applicant from his family by glass partition (violations of Article 8).

The applicant’s correspondence: The European court considered that Russian Law provided no legal protection against arbitrary interference by the public authorities in the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence (violation of Article 8);

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

On 12/01/2009 the applicant informed the Secretariat that he was no longer in detention and had no intention to seek the re-opening of the proceedings in his case.

General measures:

            1) Independence and impartiality of the trial court: The new Code of Criminal Procedure has entered into force.

According to the Supreme Court, there are a number of guarantees against arbitrary replacement of judges (objection by parties to the replacement, appeal against replacement; challenging a new judge).

• This information is being assessed.

            2) Unfairness of the proceedings: The new Code of Criminal Procedure has entered into force.

• The Russian authorities provided information on this issue which is being assessed.

            3) Poor conditions of pre-trial detention and lack of an effective remedy: These issues are being examined in the framework of the Kalashnikov group of cases (47095/99, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

            4) Poor conditions of transport to court: This issue is also being examined in the framework of the Salmanov group of cases above-mentioned (3522/04, Section 4.2).

            5) Excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings: These issues are being examined in the framework of the Klyakhin group of cases (46082/99, Section 4.2).

            6) Restrictions on detainees’ correspondence and family visits: These issues are being examined in the Vlasov case (78146/01, Section 4.2).

            7) Publication and dissemination: The Russian authorities provided information to the effect that the judgment of the European Court has been sent out to all judges, prosecutors and penitentiary institutions.

• Information is awaited on publication of the judgment of the European Court.

14810/02           Ryakib Biryukov, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial on account of the lack of access by the public to the full text of judicial decisions delivered by national courts.

According to Article 203 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964, in force at the material time, only the participants to the proceedings and their representatives are entitled to become acquainted with a reasoned judgment to be prepared after the public pronouncement of its operative part. An obligation to serve a copy of a judgment is also limited to the parties and other participants to the proceedings (Article 213).

As regards depositing court judgments with a court registry, the regulations in force at the material time restricted public access to the texts of judgments. Such access was normally given only to the parties and other participants to the proceedings

In these circumstances, the European Court found that the inaccessibility to the public of the domestic courts’ reasons justifying the rejection of the applicant’s claims impaired his right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The European Court found that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The applicant appears to have made no request for re-opening of the proceedings following the European Court’s judgment.

General measures:

1) Legislative measures: The new Code of Civil Procedure was adopted in 2002. In addition, on 22/12/2008 the Parliament adopted Federal Law No. 262-FZ “On ensuring access to information on the functioning of courts in the Russian Federation”. According to this Law, courts’ decisions should be made public through the courts’ Internet website. The Law also provides the possibility to request and to obtain information directly from court registries within 30 days.

• Assessment: The adoption of this Law is welcomed. It appears that its effective implementation will very much depend on the resources made available to the courts in order to organise their websites and deal with the requests.

• Taking into account the fact that the law was scheduled to enter into force on 1/07/2010, information would be useful in this respect. The need for further measures is being assessed by the Secretariat.

An internet site has been opened (www.sudrf.ru/), where all the judgments of all the courts are to be published.

2) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was sent out to the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the President of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court, to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, to the President of the Supreme Commercial (Arbitration) Court of the Russian Federation, to the Prosecutor General and the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in Privolzhskiy federal district.

On 17/11/2008, the judgment was sent out by letter of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to all courts.

• Information is awaited on the publication of the judgment of the European Court in Russian.

66941/01           Zagorodnikov, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 07/09/2007

The case concerns the proceedings with regard to a settlement which a bank and 188,900 of its creditors had requested the Commercial Court of Moscow to ratify. Mr Zagorodnikov disagreed with that settlement, along with 220 others. Access to the court building was restricted throughout the proceedings in the interests of public order and in order to be able to examine the case within a reasonable time.

The European Court, observing that there had been nothing to suggest that the hearings had been besieged by crowds, considered that the Government had not put forward any argument capable of persuading it that admitting the public to the hearings could have jeopardised public order or affected the length of the proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicant’s right to a public hearing.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities at the 1035th meeting (September 2008): on 8/10/2007 the Commercial Court of Moscow rejected the applicant's request for reopening of the proceedings, and informed the applicant about his right to appeal against that decision.

• A copy of that decision is awaited.

General measures: The new Code of Commercial Procedure entered into force in 2002, that is after the events at issue.

1) Regulatory measures:

On 6/08/2007 the Supreme Commercial Court issued Order No. 104 concerning access control to the buildings of the commercial courts aimed to guarantee publicity of hearings. It provides, inter alia, for:

-     creation of special places for public;

-     access to the court building of any person wishing to be present at the hearings;

-     access of press to the court buildings;

-     adoption of the relevant instructions in each commercial court;

-     the obligation of every President of the commercial courts to inform general public about the rules on visits to the courts.

• Information is awaited on examples of application of these measures in practice.

2) Publication and dissemination:The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Presidents of the Supreme Court, Supreme Commercial Court, Constitutional Court, Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of Russia in the Central Federal Circuit, and has also been disseminated amongst the regional commercial courts. It has also been published in Russian in the Bulletin of the Supreme Commercial Court of Russia (No. 10, 2007).

14939/03           Zolotukhin Sergey, judgment of 10/02/2009 – Grand Chamber

The case concerns the breach of the principle of non bis in idem (violation of Article 4 of Protocol No.7).

On 4/01/2002 the applicant was convicted of “minor disorderly acts” in administrative proceedings and sentenced to three days’ detention. On 23/01/2002 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on a charge based on the same conduct of the applicant and substantially the same facts. On 2/12/2002 the applicant was acquitted by a district court. The acquittal was not based on the fact that the applicant had been tried for the same actions under the Code of Criminal Offences. The district court found that the evidence against the applicant failed to meet the criminal standard of proof.

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

•Assessment: No individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: The European Court noted that the principle of non bis in idem is restricted to the criminal justice sphere in the Russian legal system. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a previous conviction for an essentially similar administrative offence does not constitute a ground for discontinuing criminal proceedings. The Russian Constitution protects an individual against a second conviction for the same “crime”.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (September 2009): The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to senior officials. In his letter of 19/06/2009 by which the judgment was forwarded to the regional departments of the Interior Ministry, the acting Interior Minister underlined the need to avoid second convictions for the same offence.

• Information is still awaited on measures taken or envisaged to avoid a repetition of proceedings in a situation where the defendant is on trial for an offence of which he or she has already been finally convicted or acquitted under the Code of Administrative Offences. Information is also awaited on publication of the European Courts’ judgment in Russian.

- 16 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

22666/08+         Botskalev and Rostovskaya and 42 other “privileged pensioners” cases, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

69524/01          Bulgakova, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007 and of 10/06/2008 – Friendly settlement

23113/08+         Goncharova and others, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010, rectified on 10/03/2010

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

4563/07+          Ryabov and 151 other “privileged pensioners” cases, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

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

These cases concern the quashing under Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure of final court decisions in the applicants' favour in proceedings against the local pensions fund agencies, on the ground that a new element, namely the discovery of an instruction by the Ministry of Labour and Social Development establishing a lower rate for the calculation of individual pensions than that provided by law.

The European Court noted that the pensions agencies were aware of this instruction at the time of the appeal, but it was not possible to establish that they had evoked it at appeal. Thus the review proceedings, introduced after the appeal judgments had become final, amounted in fact to a disguised appeal. Accordingly, the Court found that the quashing of the final court decision had violated the principle of legal certainty and thus the applicants' right of access to a court (violations of Article 6§1).

The Court further considered that the review of the final decisions had resulted in the applicants being deprived of their right to receive a retirement pension at a rate set by a final court decision (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures:

            1) Pravednaya case: the European Court awarded no just satisfaction since the applicant submitted no claim within the time-limit. According to the Russian authorities, the applicant's pension entitlements have changed since the facts of the present case. The authorities have been invited to provide clarification concerning her current situation so as to determine whether any specific individual measure is necessary.

On 3/03/2006 the applicant informed the Secretariat that the Russian authorities had taken no step to implement the judgment of the European Court thus compelling her to lodge, on 18/02/2005, new proceedings before the Zaeltsevskiy Federal Court with a view to restoring her rights. It seems that the applicant is asking for non-pecuniary damage as well as for a recalculation of her pension. According to the applicant, these proceedings are being delayed by the government's failure to respond to her claim before the court. The applicant's letter was transmitted to the authorities on 23/03/2006.

On 21/04/2006 the Zaeltsevskiy Federal Court ordered the authorities to pay the applicant the indexation, the pension arrears and the court fees. On 13/07/2006 this judgment was confirmed by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on appeal. The judgment was fully executed on 14/08/2006.

• Information is awaited on whether the applicant was also granted the non pecuniary damage and the default interest.

            2) Bulgakova case: The European Court first reserved the issue of just satisfaction. Following a friendly settlement concluded between the applicant and the government, the application was struck out of the list (judgment of 10/06/2008).

3) Other cases: the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

• The need for further individual measures is being assessed.

General measures: The European Court stated that the procedure for review of final judgments on the ground of newly discovered circumstances (Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure) does not in itself contradict the principle of legal certainty insofar as it is used to correct miscarriages of justice.

Interpretation of this provision by the Russian courts however needs to be adapted to the Convention requirements, as set out in the present judgment, so as to prevent new, similar violations. It would therefore appear appropriate to draw the attention of domestic courts (e.g. through a circular of the Supreme Court) to their obligation to respect the requirement of legal certainty when interpreting the relevant legal provisions.

• Information in this respect is awaited.

The Pravednaya judgment was published in the Bulletin of the European Court (Russian version) Nos.5 and 11, 2005 and the Kuznetsova judgment in the Konsultant + electronic database. Both judgments were sent out to the Ministry of Health and Social Development, the Pension Fund Agency and Federal Bailiffs Service. The Kuznetsova judgment was also sent to the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, as well as to the Prosecutor General's Office. The Supreme Court sent out the Kuznetsova judgment to all regional courts.

The Russian authorities also provided clarification in respect of the “individual pensioner coefficient”. They also indicated that the legislation governing the calculation of individual pensions was changed by the Federal Law of 17/12/2001 No. 173-FZ, which has been in force since 01/01/2002.

The Russian authorities have provided information on general measures in a number of cases.

• This information is being assessed.

- 4 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

The cases concern violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in that the final judgments were quashed to their detriment by means of “supervisory review” (Violation of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that in the absence of a fundamental judicial error, the use of the nadzor procedure by the prosecution authorities to obtain an additional investigation so as to correct shortcomings or failures of the previous investigation constituted an abuse of process. Accordingly the European Court found that the quashing of the applicant’s acquittals had been used to obtain a rehearing and fresh determination of the case.

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

In the Radchikov case the prosecution discontinued the case against the applicant in April 2001 following his death.

• Submissions by the applicant's representative (11/07/2008): On 11/03/2008 the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation submitted to the Supreme Court a request for the re-opening of the proceedings in the applicant’s case on the basis of newly discovered circumstances. On 11/03/2008 the Supreme Court re-opened the criminal case and upheld the decision quashing the applicant’s acquittal.

• This information is being assessed.

• Information is awaited as to whether the other applicants have applied for reopening and whether their applications were granted.

General measures:

1) Measures taken:The new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force on 1/07/2002. Under the new Code, the application of supervisory review was limited to those cases in which it would not involve changes detrimental to the convicted person. Acquittals and decisions to discontinue proceedings may not be subject to supervisory review.

• Assessment: It seems that at that time the risk of new similar violations of the Convention was prevented by the impossibility to change the defendant’s situation to his detrimental.

2) Decision of the Constitutional Court invalidating Article 405 of the Code of Criminal procedure: By ruling No. 5-P of 11/05/2005 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation held that the such limitation on reviewing cases to the convicted persons’ detriment is unconstitutional being, inter alia, unfair towards the victims: it found Article 405 of the Code to be unconstitutional insofar as this provision limited the judicial review of decisions, including judgments which had become final, to cases not involving changes detrimental to the defendant and thus excluded the possibility of correcting fundamental defects in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case. The court declared that the provision was in breach of both the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 6 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, and struck it down.

It ruled that such review can be made within a year after the revised judgment has become final, only if a judicial error had resulted in misrepresentation of the very essence of justice, in distortion of the gist of the judgment as an act of justice, by undermining the balance of constitutionally protected values, including the rights of the convicted or victims.

3) Amendments of Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The law to amend Article 405 of the CCP in line with the ruling of the Constitutional Court entered into force on 14/03/2009.

4) New cases before the European Court: several cases with the relevant questions have recently been communicated by the European Court of Human Rights (see, for example, statement of facts and questions to the parties in applications Nos 46926/09, Bakrina, of 05/07/2010 or 50724/09, Dubrovskiy of 06/07/2010)

5) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court was sent out by the Supreme Court to all regional courts. The judgment was also sent to the Office of the Prosecutor General. The judgment was published in the Bulletin of the European Court, No. 10, 2007.

- 2 cases concerning the search carried out in the home of the applicants, lawyers, in the framework of criminal proceedings opened against their clients and the illegal seizure and retention of property

71362/01           Smirnov, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 12/11/2007

19856/04           Kolesnichenko, judgment of 09/04/2009, final on 09/07/2009

These cases concern violations of the rights of the applicants, both advocates, due to searches of their homes and the seizure of possessions by the investigating authorities in criminal proceedings against their clients.

The European Court found that the searches had been carried out without sufficient and relevant grounds or safeguards against interference with professional secrecy, the excessively broad terms of the warrants giving the police total freedom to determine what was seized. The authorities’ interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 8).

In the Smirnov case, the European Court also observed that the central unit of the applicant’s computer was still retained by the authorities, more than six years after the event. It further noted that retaining the computer not only caused personal inconvenience to the applicant but also hindered his professional activities and even had repercussions for the administration of justice. The Court therefore found that Russian authorities failed to strike a “fair balance” between the demands of general interest and the requirement to protect the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Court further found that the applicant did not have an effective remedy to challenge the retention of his possessions (violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures:

1) Kolesnichenko case: The European court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in relation to the violations found.

            2) Smirnov case: The European Court granted no just satisfaction to the applicant as he failed to submit a claim in this respect within the specified time-limit.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The Russian authorities indicated that according to the information submitted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, no claim has been lodged by the applicant with the domestic courts after the judgment of the European Court.

• Assessment: It would appear that when the European Court delivered its judgment, the applicant’s computer was still retained by the domestic authorities (§58 of the judgment). It would also appear that the applicant’s civil claim for damages had been pending before the domestic courts (§25 of the judgment).

• Information is thus awaited on the fate of the applicant’s computer which contained the data subject to professional secrecy, and especially on whether these data have been returned to him or destroyed Information is also awaited on the outcome of compensation proceedings which were pending when the European Court delivered its judgment.

General measures:

1) Violations of Article 8 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The new Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) entered into force in 2002, i.e. after the events described in the judgment. The new Code does not however contain any specific provisions concerning searches in lawyers’ premises. This issue is dealt with by the Advocates Act No. 63 of 31/05/2002.

Its section 8§3 provides that residential and professional premises of an advocate may only be searched on the basis of a judicial decision. The information, objects and documents obtained during the search may be used in evidence only if they are not covered by the attorney-client privilege in a given criminal case.

Subsequently the Constitutional Court (Ruling No 439-O of 8/11/2005) specified that such judicial order shall mention the concrete object of the search and reasons for authorising this course of action in order to avoid that a search leads to the disclosure of documents concerning other clients.

• Assessment:

            a) scope and motivation of the search warrant: Although search and seizure in lawyers’ premises is now possible only on the basis of a prior judicial authorisation, it would appear that this measure does not entirely remedy the shortcomings identified by the Court. In its Aleksanyan judgment (of 22/12/2008, final on 5/06/2009, Section 2.1), the Court found a similar violation in respect of the judicial search warrant issued in April 2006 particularly due to its vagueness, as it did not specify what items and documents were expected to be found in the applicant’s office or how they would be relevant to the investigation.

• Information is thus awaited on the measures taken or planned to ensure domestic courts’ practice compliance with the Convention’s requirements.

            b) safeguards against interference with professional secrecy: As to the manner in which the search was conducted, the European Court found that “there was no safeguard in place against interference with the professional secrecy, such as for example, a prohibition on removing documents covered by lawyer-client privilege or supervision of the search by an independent observer capable of identifying, independently from the investigation team, which documents were covered by legal professional privilege” (Smirnov judgment, §48). As to the quality of this observer, the Court noted that “the presence of two attesting witnesses obviously could not be considered a sufficient safeguard, given that they were laymen who had no legal qualification and were unable to detect privileged materials” (Koleshnichenko).

• Information is thus awaited on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that Russian law governing search and seizure conducted in respect of lawyers meets the Convention’s requirements.

2) Violation of Article 13:

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The Russian authorities indicated that pending the investigation, the decision to retain the seized objects may be subject to judicial review according to Article 125 of CCP. If the case was transmitted to the trial court, the decision to retain the seized objects may be challenged together with the decision delivered on the merits.

• More details would be useful on the powers of the court examining decisions on retention of seized objects. Relevant examples of the domestic courts’ case-law would be particularly welcomed.

3) Publication and dissemination: The Smirnov judgment of the European Court was sent to the President of the Supreme Court, to the General Prosecutor's office, to the Constitutional Court and to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Severo-Zapadniy federal district. On 25/03/2008, the judgment was sent to all judges, including those of the Saint-Petersburg City Court, together with a circular letter from the Deputy of the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It was also discussed during a working meeting with the judges of the Civil, Criminal and Military Chambers of the Supreme Court.

The judgment was translated into Russian and published on the web-site of the Ministry of Justice www.minjust.ru.

The Kolesnichenko judgment was sent to the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, to the Head of the Investigating Committee with the Prokuratura of the Russian Federation, to the Investigating Committee of the Ministry of the Interior and to the President of the Constitutional Court.

On 5/03/2010 the judgment was sent to all regional courts together with a circular letter of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

On 15/03/2010 the judgment was sent to all prosecutors together with a letter of the Deputy Prosecutor General.

On 16/03/2010 the judgment was disseminated to all investigators by a letter of the Deputy Head of the Investigating Committee with the Prokuratura of the Russian Federation.

                        - 3 cases concerning confiscatory measures taken without precise legal justification

30352/03           İsmayılov, judgment of 06/11/2008, final on 06/04/2009

23202/05           Adzhigovich, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

31004/02           Sun, judgment of 05/02/2009, final on 14/09/2009

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the confiscatory measures taken against them following their failure to declare to the customs all the sums they were carrying while crossing the Russian border. The European Court found that the confiscation measures were disproportionate (İsmayılov) or unlawful (Adzhigovich, Sun) (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In the İsmayılov case the European Court first noted that the trial court had determined that the money was an “instrument of the crime” liable to confiscation, an eventuality foreseen in Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that at that moment the Supreme Court of Russia interpreted the notion of an “instrument of the offence” as comprising also the objects of the offence. Accordingly, the Court found that the measure had a basis in domestic law which was sufficiently foreseeable in its application. However, the Court further found that the lawful origin of the money had not been in dispute and that the applicant had had no criminal record and had not been suspected of money laundering, corruption or other serious financial offences. Since he had already been punished for the smuggling offence with a criminal conviction, the desired deterrent effect had therefore already been achieved and the Court was not convinced that it had been necessary to take away his money.

In the Adzhigovich case the European Court noted that the domestic courts first recognised the confiscated money as physical evidence, but later determined that it had been neither the object of the offence of smuggling nor the proceeds of any criminal activity, and was therefore not liable to confiscation. The European Court therefore concluded that the Russian authorities had consistently failed to indicate a legal provision that could be construed as the basis for the confiscation of the applicant's property and that they further refused to return the money which eventually the domestic courts had ordered to be repaid to the applicant.

In the Sun case the European Court found that the measure of confiscation imposed by the Russian courts fell short of the requirement of predictability of law. The Court noted that the money had been confiscated as “criminally acquired” pursuant to Article 86 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the material time. However, the European Court noted that it had never been claimed that the applicant’s money was the proceeds of any criminal activity or had been unlawfully acquired; as national law provided confiscation only in cases of “criminally acquired” money, the European Court found that it had been impossible for the applicant to foresee any detrimental consequence of his carrying lawfully acquired money across a border.

Individual measures: In the cases of İsmayılov and Adzhigovich the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears to be necessary.

In the Sun case, the applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction; however, the Court observed that he might request the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him, which was available in Russian law insofar as a violation of the Convention had been established.

• Information is thus awaited on whether the applicant requested the reopening.

General measures: The European Court’s judgment in İsmayılov has been sent out to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, to the Federal Custom Service and to the Prosecutor General’s Office. On 20/05/2009 the judgment was sent out to the judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. On 15/05/2009 the judgment was sent together with a circular letter of the Vice-President of the Supreme Court to all Presidents of Regional Courts. On 20/05/2009 the judgment was sent by a letter of the Head of the Main Customs Investigating Directorate to all its subordinates.

The Adzhigovich judgment has been sent out to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Moscow City Court, Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, to the Federal Custom Service and to the Prosecutor General’s Office, and disseminated among the regional courts of general jurisdiction, regional prosecutors’ offices and regional customs departments.

The Sun judgment has been sent out to the Khabarovsk Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the General Prosecutor, to the Head of the Investigative Committee, to the Interior Ministry, to the Federal Security service of Russia, to the Federal Custom Service, to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and disseminated among the regional courts of general jurisdiction, regional prosecutors’ offices, regional departments of the Investigative Committee, to the regional departments of the Interior Ministry, and to the courts of general jurisdiction of the Khabarovsk Region.

• Information is awaited on publication of the judgments in Russian as well as on other general measures to prevent new, similar violations.

35989/02           Novikov, judgment of 18/06/2009, final on 06/11/2009[89]

32718/02           Tuleshov and others, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

The case concerns the applicants’ eviction in October 2003 from a house which had been purchased through a court-administered tender procedure which subsequently proved to be unlawful. Although the domestic courts recognised the applicants as bona fide buyers, the decision to evict them against compensation was taken for the benefit of the preceding legal owner. The amount of compensation was found inadequate by the European Court (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In addition, the European Court considered that the applicants had suffered a violation of their right to a home, due to the uncertainty they had suffered with regard the possibility of receiving alternative housing and the limited possibilities for them to rent or buy due to the inadequacy compensation, which was paid only about a year after the eviction (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of all damages (pecuniary and non-pecuniary) sustained.

General measures:

1) Adequacy of compensation: it appears that the applicants’ reasoning and calculations were rejected by the domestic courts without sufficient grounds (§ 45 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 4/03/2008 the judgment was sent out to all courts with a letter from the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Given the direct effect of the Convention and of the judgments of the European Court in Russian law, it is expected that the domestic courts will align their practice with the Convention’s requirements, in particular as regards amounts of compensation.

2) Respect of the applicants’ right to a home: The violation appears to have been due to the delay in enforcing the domestic court’s decision granting compensation and in providing the applicants with alternative accommodation (§ 53 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: On 12/03/2008 the judgment was sent out to the territorial departments of the Federal Bailiff Service with a letter from its Director. The judgment was discussed at regular meetings in these territorial departments.

• Information is still awaited on the provisions of Russian legislation (housing, enforcement proceedings, etc) governing situations similar to this one and in particular as to the existence of the safeguards in respect of the eviction of bona fide buyers.

3) Publication and dissemination

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: the judgment was also sent to the Governor of the Saratov Region and to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in Privolgskiy federal district. The judgment was analysed by the legal department of the government of the Saratov Region which recommended that the compliance of local legislation with the Convention’s requirements should be checked regularly.

Extracts of the European Court’s judgment were published on the Ministry of Justice website www.minjust.ru.

67099/01           Solodyuk, judgment of 12/07/05, final on 30/11/05

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

Individual measures: The pecuniary and non-pecuniary prejudice suffered by the applicants was remedied by the European Court through the grant of just satisfaction.

• Assessment: Thus, no individual measure would appear to be necessary.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all courts together with a circular letter of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court. It would appear that several reforms of the legislation on pensions took place since the events at issue. In this context, the Russian authorities were invited to take into account the measures taken in other countries to prevent similar violations (see, for example, Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 in Aka and Akus v. Turkey concerning the Turkish reform aligning the statutory rate of default interest applicable to all State debts on the country's official inflation rate established by the Central Bank).

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (October 2007): Legislative regulations prescribe that pensions are index-linked to the inflation rate once a year.

• Assessment: However, no information has been provided as to the regulations to prevent delays in pension payments or to compensate for losses suffered if such delays occur.

• Information is thus still expected: on whether the legislation currently in force provides for safeguards in order to prevent delays in payments of pensions and to ensure that the value of amounts due by the State be effectively safeguarded in case of delays in payment.

• Information is still  awaited on publication and wide dissemination of the present judgment to all relevant authorities, in particular to the Ministry of labour, the Pension Fund Agency and all their local subordinates drawing their attention to the obligation under the Convention to prevent new similar violations.

18274/04           Borzhonov, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 22/04/2009

The case concerns the authorities' failure to strike a fair balance between the general interest and the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession due to their continued retention of his property even after the annulment of a charging order (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). The case further concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1) and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained. The domestic proceedings are closed.

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicant may obtain compensation for his property retained and lost by the authorities.

General measures: As regards excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect, the general measures are being examined in the Smirnova group of cases (46133/99, Section 4.2).

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to prevent new violations.

4378/02            Bykov, judgment of 10/03/2009 – Grand Chamber

The case concerns interference by the authorities with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life which was not “in accordance with law” (violation of Article 8). In 2000 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant and a covert operation was conducted according to the Operational-Search Activities Act. This Act was interpreted by the authorities as not requiring any prior judicial authorisation for their activities as the “guest house” where the action took place was not regarded as a “home” and the use of the radio-transmitting device was not interpreted as the “telephone tapping”.

The case further concerns the authorities’ failure to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s detention pending trial (violation of Article 5§3).

Individual measures: The European court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant is no longer detained on remand.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 8: The European Court noted in its judgment that, to comply with the requirement of the “quality of the law”, a law which confers discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (§78).

The European Court found that in the absence of specific and detailed regulations the interception as part of an “operative experiment” was not accompanied by adequate safeguards against possible abuses (§81).

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to ensure adequate safeguards against possible abuses in the use of surveillance techniques.

            2) Violation of Article 5§3: The general measures are examined in the Klyakhin group of cases (46082/99, Section 4.2).

3) Publication and dissemination of the European court’s judgment

• Information is awaited in this respect.

3451/05            Kalacheva, judgment of 07/05/2009, final on 07/08/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life due to domestic courts’ dismissal of her action to establish the paternity of her daughter born out of wedlock. The DNA test ordered by a domestic court showed a 99.99% probability that the defendant was the child’s father. However, the court found the test inadmissible due to the shortcomings of the sampling procedure (inappropriate marking of the envelope). The court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated without ordering a new test (violation of Article 8).

At the 1072nd meeting (December 2009), the Russian authorities provided preliminary information on dissemination of the judgment of the European Court.

• An action plan/action report is awaited.

32147/04           Kuimov, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to family life on account of the restrictions imposed by the authorities concerning the access to his adoptive child (violation of Article 8). In this respect, on 11/12/2003 the child was removed from her parents and hospitalised in intensive care, as the applicant consistently refused to allow his child to receive the necessary treatment. Subsequently the child was placed in a foster family. On 2/11/2005 the child was returned to the applicant and his spouse.

The European Court found that severe and unjustified restrictions had been imposed on the applicant’s access to the child during the period between 11/12/2003 and 25/01/2005.

- 2 cases concerning freedom of religion (refusal to register the applicants’ religious groups as legal entities)

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

The cases concern interference with religious events organised by members of the Chelyabinsk community of Jehovah's Witnesses (Kuznetsov case) found by the Court not to be prescribed by law (violation of Article 9) and the ban imposed on a service of worship planned by the “Christ’s Grace” Church of Evangelical Christians in a town park (Barankevich) (violation of Article 11 interpreted in the light of Article 9).

In the Kuznetsov case the Court also found that the domestic courts, in dismissing the applicants’ civil complaints, failed in their duty to state the reasons on which their decisions were based and to demonstrate that the parties had been heard in a fair and equitable manner (violation of Article 6).

Individual measures: In both cases, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

            1) Barankevich case: According to the information provided by the authorities, no further application for permission to hold a service in public has been received from the applicant.

• Assessment: no further measure appears necessary.

            2) Case of Kuznetsov and others: 

(a) Submissions by the applicants’ and their representative:

-           On 04/05/2007 the applicants provided information to the effect that that the premises of the Jehovah's Witnesses had been raided by the police in April 2006 in Moscow and in April 2007 in Satka (Chelyabinsk region). On 16/07/2007 this submission was transmitted to the Russian authorities for comments.

-           On 16/11/2007, the applicants’ representative informed the Committee of Ministers of the Russian courts’ failure to comply with the Kuznetsov judgment in other similar cases pending before them, in particular in Moscow. On 6/12/2007, this submission was forwarded to the Russian authorities for comments.

-           On 31/05/2010, the applicant’s representative provided information to the effect that on 12/05/2010 law enforcement officials in Chelyabinsk conducted 11 raids on private apartments and work places of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and their actions also extended to the meeting place of the very Congregation of the Deaf which was the subject of the Kuznetsov and Others case; video equipment was confiscated.

On 23/07/2010 these submissions were transmitted to the Russian authorities.

(b) Information provided by the Russian authorities: In October 2007 the Russian authorities indicated that in response to the applicants’ submission of 04/05/2007, the local department of the Ministry of the Interior in Satka carried out an internal inquiry into the events which took place on 2/04/2007 in Satka (Chelyabinsk region). As a result of this inquiry, disciplinary sanctions were imposed on the First Deputy to the Head of the Local Department, the Chief of the Criminal Police Tsivilev, and the District Police Officer Spiridonov.

• The Russian authorities’ comments are still awaited in response to the applicants’ submissions of 16/11/2007 and of 31/05/2010.

General measures:

(a) Information provided by the Russian authorities in respect of both cases

            1) Legislative amendments: At the material time, domestic law provided that a person wishing to hold an assembly or a service of worship in a public place should obtain prior authorisation from the authorities. In 2004 a new law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketing entered into force and the requirement of authorisation was replaced by simple notification.

            2) Publication and dissemination: The Kuznetsov judgment has been sent to all domestic courts by letter of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

• Information is awaited on dissemination of the Barankevich judgment and publication of both judgments.

            3) Other measures: Following the adoption of the Kuznetsov judgment, the Ministry of the Interior has taken measures to reinforce its control over the activities of its officers and to prevent new, similar violations: in particular, additional training was organised with the officers of the Satka local department, during which they studied material concerning freedom of thought and of religion as well as the legislation governing demonstrations and meetings.

Moreover, the Ministry of the Interior has notified all local departments of their obligation to comply unconditionally with the judgment of the European Court.

• Information is awaited on measures to prevent new similar violations.

(b) Submission by a non-governmental organisation in respect of the case of Kuznetsov and others: In accordance with Rule 9§2 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and of the Terms of Friendly Settlements, in September 2010 the European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses submitted information on the general situation concerning disruption of activities of members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious organisations. It transpires from this submission that on 11/09/2009 the Rostov Regional Court labelled 34 publications published by a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses as extremist. It appears that on 08/12/2009 the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia on appeal. Since then there have been at least 330 recorded incidents of disruption of activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organisations, including seizure of literature, searches of private homes and places of worship, interruption of religious meetings etc., in different regions of Russia. On 8/11/2010 this submission was transmitted to the Russian authorities for comments.

• Their comments are awaited.

- 3 cases concerning refusals to register or re-register the applicants' religious groups as legal entities

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

76836/01          Kimlya and others, judgment of 01/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010, rectified on 03/12/2009

The cases concern the refusal to re-register (Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army and Church of Scientology Moscow) or register (Kimlya and others) the applicant associations, resulting in the loss, or the failure to obtain, the status of legal personality (violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 9).

The Religions Act which entered into force in 1997 required all religious associations that had been previously granted legal-entity status to amend their articles of association in conformity with the new Act so as to be “re-registered” before the end of 2000. The government’s position in the Salvation Army and Church of Scientology cases was that there was no interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of association because following the refusals to re-register they had not been liquidated, the disputed decisions had not entailed a ban on their activity and that members of the applicant associations continued to profess their faith, hold services of worship and ceremonies, and guide their followers.

However, the European Court found that there had been interference with the religious organisations’ right to freedom of association and also with their right to freedom of religion insofar as the Religions Act restricted the ability of a religious association without legal personality to exercise the full range of religious activities. The European Court further found that since it had not been proved that the applicants had breached domestic law or any regulation governing their associative life and religious activities during their existence, the reasons given for refusing re-registration had had no legal basis. The authorities had therefore not acted in good faith and had neglected their duty to be neutral and impartial with respect to the applicant associations.

In the case of Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army, the European Court observed, inter alia, that the grounds for refusing re-registration of the applicant were not consistent throughout the domestic proceedings. As to the first reason adduced for refusing the applicant's re-registration request, namely its “foreign origin”, the Court found that this was neither “relevant and sufficient”, nor “prescribed by law”. As to the second reason, namely the applicant's omission to set out its religious affiliation and practices in a precise manner, the Court observed that the Religions Act did not lay down any guidelines as to the manner in which the religious affiliation or denomination of an organisation should be described in its founding documents. Regarding the arguments that the applicant should be denied registration as a “paramilitary organisation” because of the use of the word “army” in its name and the fact that its members wore uniform, the Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant advocated violence, contravened any Russian law or pursued objectives other than those listed in its articles of association.

In the case of Church of Scientology Moscow, the applicant association applied 11 times for re-registration to the Moscow Justice Department between 1998 and 2005. On several occasions, the applications were not processed on the ground that a complete set of documents had not been provided. Upon the applicant’s complaints, the competent district court gave specific reasons for the refusal, namely that the applicant had failed to produce originals of their charter and other documents. It further held that the book submitted by the applicant did not provide sufficient information on the basic tenets of Scientology's creed and practice. Ultimately, the courts found that the refusal to examine the applicant's amended charter had had no lawful basis and the Justice Department was ordered to re-examine the application for re-registration. Later, the Justice Department refused the applicant's last application on a new ground, in particular the failure to produce a document proving the applicant's presence in Moscow for at least fifteen years.

The European Court found that when refusing to re-register the applicant, the Justice Department had not specified what information or document had been missing, which prevented the applicant association from being able to amend their application and re-submit it. Furthermore, that approach had run counter to domestic law which required any refusal to be justified. Consequently, the Justice Department had acted in an arbitrary manner and the refusals had not been “in accordance with the law”. The reasons specified by the district court, namely the applicant's failure to produce originals of certain documents, had had no foundation in law. Moreover, the requirement to enclose originals with each application would have been excessively difficult, even impossible, given that the Justice Department was under no legal obligation to return the documents enclosed with applications. In any case, the Justice Department did have in its possession the originals at issue which had never been returned since their inclusion in the first application for re-registration. Therefore, the district court's decision that the applicant had been responsible for not providing adequate documentation had no factual or legal basis. Furthermore, the domestic court had not explained why the book submitted by the applicant had not contained sufficient information on the basic creed, tenets and practices of Scientology, and therefore had failed in its task to clarify the applicable legal requirements and give the applicant clear instructions on how to prepare a complete and adequate application.

As regards the applicant's failure to secure re-registration within the established time-limit, it had been a direct consequence of arbitrary rejection of its earlier applications by the Justice Department. Finally, the latest requirement to produce the document showing the applicant's fifteen-year presence in Moscow had also been unlawful, as the Constitutional Court had ruled that no such document should be required from organisations which had existed before the entry into force of the Religions Act in 1997, which was the applicant's case.

In the case of Kimlya and Others the European Court found that the ground for refusing registration had been purely formal (the “15-year rule”) and unconnected with their actual functioning.

Individual measures:

            1) Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army: 

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (February 2010): on 10/04/2009 the applicant was duly re-registered as the Local Religious Organisation of the Evangelical Christians “Salvation Army” in Moscow.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears to be necessary.

            2) Church of Scientology Moscow: In its judgment the European Court established the government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation. It further noted that it falls to the respondent state to decide whether such measures involve granting re-registration of the applicant, removing the requirement to obtain re-registration from the Religious Act, reopening of the domestic proceedings or a combination of these and other measures (§106).

• Applicant's submissions (April 2008): The application for re-opening the case was refused by the Nikulinsky District Court on 11/03/2008. The district court stated that there was no provision in domestic law allowing re-opening of a civil case on the basis of a finding of a violation of the Convention by the European Court. The applicant's submissions have been transmitted to the government.

• Applicant’s submissions (November 2008): The applicant association was again refused re-registration on new, “spurious” technical grounds on which the authorities had not relied when dismissing any of the applicant's previous applications. The applicant's submissions have been transmitted to the government.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (March 2010): On 22/08/2008 and 12/12/2008, that is, after the judgment of the European Court, the authorities again refused re-registration of the Church of Scientology Moscow, on the following formal grounds:

-           all members of a local religious organisation should be local residents, whereas two of the members of the Church of Scientology Moscow resided in other regions of Russia;

-           the memorandum of association should contain information about the structure of the organisation and the way the governing bodies are formed, which was not the case of the memorandum of association of the Church of Scientology Moscow;

-           no copy of the memorandum of association or another equivalent document of the head organisation (in the USA) has been submitted;

-           “Scientology” is a registered trade mark which does not correspond with the legal conception of a denomination title.

The refusals were not judicially disputed. Since 12/12/2008 no application for re-registration has been submitted.

On the other hand, the authorities underlined that following a periodical inspection of the activities of the Church of Scientology Moscow no violation of Russian law by that organisation was found. 

The authorities also underlined that the Church of Scientology Moscow has suffered no negative consequences following the refusals of re-registration, apart from the fact that the changes in its memorandum of association and other corporate documents can only have legal force once they are duly registered by the authorities.

• Information is awaited as to whether the appropriate measures were taken or are planned in accordance with the judgment of the European Court, in particular its § 106 (see above).

            3) Kimlya and others: The European Court found, as it did in the Church of Scientology Moscow judgment, that it is the respondent state which decides wwhether measures to execute judgment would involve granting registration to the communities concerned, removing the reference to the “fifteen-year rule” from the Religions Act, reopening of the domestic proceedings or a combination of these and other measures.

• Information is awaited on the appropriate measures taken.

General measures: The Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court has informed the Federal Registration Service and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the European Court's judgments in the case of Moscow Branch of Salvation Army so that they may adopt individual and general measures and take the findings of the European Court into account in their daily practice.

The judgment in the case of the Church of Scientology Moscow has also been sent out to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor General and the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of Russia in the Central Federal Circuit, and has also been sent out  with a circular letter from the Supreme Court of Russia of 21/11/2007 to regional courts of general jurisdiction.

The Federal Registration Service has summarised the implementation practice of its territorial departments with regard to the refusal of documents submitted by the religious organisations. This information was notified to all territorial departments for use in their daily practice, with a view to preventing new, similar violations.

These issues, including the judgment of the European Court in the case of Moscow Branch of Salvation Army, were also discussed at a seminar of all heads of territorial departments on 27-28 September 2007.

• Information is awaited on general measures taken or planned to prevent the further similar violations and on the publication of all the judgments and dissemination of the judgments in the case of Kimlya and others.

35082/04           Makhmudov, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

The case concerns the arbitrary cancellation by the Moscow administrative authorities of a meeting of local residents, organised by the applicant, to protest against the Moscow government’s town-planning policy. The authorities based their action on a potential “terrorist threat” pursuant to the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25/07/1998. This did not however prevent the holding of public festivities a few days later. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence supporting the theory of a “terrorist threat”, the European Court found that there had been no justification for the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly and association (violation of Article 11).

The case also concerns the administrative arrest of the applicant for allegedly disobeying a lawful order and his detention overnight. In the absence of any concrete information concerning the lawful order the applicant allegedly disobeyed, the European Court found that the applicant’s arrest had not been based on a “reasonable suspicion” (violation of Article 5§1).

Finally, the European Court noted that the applicant had been subjected to an administrative arrest, which meant that the fact of finding the arrest illegal would not have been sufficient for the applicant to be entitled to compensation. He would also have to prove that the officials had been at fault. In these circumstances, the European Court found that the applicant did not have an enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful arrest and detention (violation of Article 5§5).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of all the damages sustained.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (March 2008): Following the adoption of the judgment of the European Court no case has been opened against the officials as regards the applicant’s unlawful arrest, as the investigation has already been time-barred.

• This information is being assessed by the Secretariat.

General measures:

1) Right to freedom of assembly and association: On 6/03/2006, the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25/07/1998, in force at the material time was replaced by the new Law “on Suppression of Terrorism”.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (March 2008): The current rules governing cancellation of meetings or assemblies prescribe that the public meetings may be banned by the authorities only in certain circumstances, namely:

-           if the meeting is to take place on territory where a state of emergency has been declared;

-           if the meeting is to take place near certain industrial facilities, the residence of the President of Russia, courts, prisons etc.;

-           if the authorities have not been notified of the meeting;

-           if the place of the meeting has not been agreed with the authorities.

Information is thus still awaited on the current rules governing cancellation of meetings or assemblies on the ground of a potential “terrorist threat”.

2) Administrative arrest: It results from the judgment that the domestic courts themselves found that the applicant’s arrest was in breach of domestic standards (§ 22 of the judgment). However the only consequence of these findings was the discontinuation of the administrative proceedings brought against the applicant. No other consequence, e.g. compensation for unlawful arrest or disciplinary proceedings against the police officers responsible or any other sanction of the abuse, was drawn up.

• Information provided by the Russian authorities (March 2008): On 31/01/2008 the Head of the Moscow department of the Interior Ministry issued an instruction aiming to eliminate unlawful administrative arrest. Special attention has been paid to observance of professional ethics, politeness and prohibition of violation of the citizens’ legitimate rights and interests. On 15/0/2008 a seminar was organised for the deputy heads of departments and divisions of the Interior Ministry concerning the organisation of public meetings and responsibility of participants and officials for violating the relevant regulations.

The authorities have also outlined the legal provisions concerning administrative apprehension.

• Information is therefore awaited:

-           on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that police officers strictly comply with the safeguards provided by law and by the Convention, e.g. on how abuses of this power by police officers are punished;

-           as to whether appropriate training measures are included in regular curricula for police officers, in particular with regard to the concept of “reasonable suspicion”.

3) Compensation for unlawful administrative arrest: It would appear that unlike unlawful deprivation of liberty in criminal proceedings and administrative punishment, unlawful administrative arrest is excluded from the strict liability of the state.

• Information is thus still awaited on measures taken or envisaged (either change of judicial practice or legal reform) to comply with the findings of the European Court.

It would also appear that in addition to this lacuna in the law, the European Court criticised the limited scope of the examination by domestic courts (§ 103 of the judgment).

• Information is thus still awaited as to whether this issue has already been dealt with by the Supreme Court in its plenary decisions providing lower courts with guidelines on the application of provisions of the Code of administrative offences. Otherwise it would be useful to provide all courts with appropriate instructions in the light of the European Court’s findings;

4) Publication and dissemination. The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Prosecutor General's Office, to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, to the Interior Ministry, to the Moscow municipal authorities and to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Central Federal Circuit. It has also been disseminated among judges of the courts of general jurisdiction and among the regional prosecutors’ offices.

• Information is thus awaited on publication of the judgment in Russian.

67336/01          Danilenkov and others, judgment of 30/07/2009, final on 10/12/2009, rectified on 23/04/2010

The case concerns the state's failure in its positive obligation to afford effective and clear judicial protection of the applicants against discrimination by their employer on the ground of belonging to a trade union. The company used various means to persuade employees to relinquish their union membership, including re-assigning to special work teams with limited opportunities, dismissals subsequently found unlawful by the courts, wage reductions, disciplinary sanctions, and refusal to reinstate trade-union members following court judgments in their favour. Although the applicants were entitled to have their discrimination complaints examined by a court by virtue of the general rules of the Russian Civil Code and the lex specialis contained in the Trade Union Act, these provisions remained ineffective, as the domestic judicial authorities refused to entertain the applicants’ discrimination complaints on the grounds that discrimination could only be established in criminal proceedings.

The European Court considered that the criminal remedy could not have provided adequate and practicable redress in respect of the alleged anti-union discrimination as, being based on the principle of personal liability, the criminal remedy required proof “beyond reasonable doubt” of direct intent by the company’s key managers to discriminate against trade-union members (violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 11).

• At the 1078th meeting (March 2010), the Russian authorities provided preliminary information on the payment of the just satisfaction and on the dissemination of the judgment.

10877/04           Kuznetsov Sergei, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s freedom of expression and assembly due his being convicted for having taken part in a picket in front of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, distributing pamphlets alleging corruption of the court’s president and collecting signatures for a petition calling for his dismissal (violation of Article 11 interpreted in the light of Article 10).

Considering the charges upheld against the applicant, the European Court noted that the belated notification of the authorities about the planned picket (first charge) was neither relevant nor sufficient reason for imposing administrative liability on the applicant because the authorities were not prevented from making necessary preparations. Reiterating that any demonstration in a public place inevitably causes the disruption of ordinary life and taking into account the applicant’s flexibility and readiness to co-operate with the authorities, the European Court did not accept the alleged obstruction of passage (second charge) as a relevant and sufficient reason for the interference. As for the alleged discrepancy between the aims of the picket and the disseminated materials (third charge), the Court noticed that the domestic courts’ judgments did not contain any analysis as to what the alleged differences were between the declared aims of the picket and the contents of the material distributed. Moreover, the European Court found that the publications did not exceed the bounds of acceptable criticism, observing in particular the importance of preserving the freedom of a political debate on a matter of general and public concern. The European Court concluded that in spite of the relatively small amount of the fine imposed on the applicant, the interference was not necessary in a democratic society.

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

• Assessment: Taking into account the small amount of the fine and that according to the relevant provisions of the Russian Code of Administrative offences a person ceases to be administratively penalised one year after the imposition of the administrative penalty, no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged to prevent new, similar violations, particularly measures of dissemination and awareness-raising.

30160/04           Dzhavadov, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007

The case concerns an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression due to the refusal in 2003 by the Russian Ministry for the Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting and Mass Communications to register the applicant's periodical, on the ground that it was considered that its title might give rise to confusion. The refusal was based on the provisions of section 13(1)(2) of the Mass Media Act of 27/12/1991 which provides dismissal of an application for dismissal if it contains information which does not correspond to “real state of affairs”.

The European Court found that these provisions did not meet the “quality of law” standard under the Convention, as were not reasonably foreseeable for the applicant and allowed extensive interpretation by the authorities (violation of Article 10).

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

• Information is awaited as to whether it is open to the applicant to resubmit an application for registration of his newspaper.

General measures: Section 13(1)(2) of the Mass Media Act appears still to be in force. In view of the European Court’s findings an amendment of this Act seems necessary.

In June 2008 the Russian authorities provided information on the publication and dissemination of the judgment.

• Information is awaited on measures, in particular legislative measured, envisaged to prevent similar violations. Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to competent administrative authorities and courts is also necessary, to draw attention to the requirements of the Convention in this respect.

29492/05          Kudeshkina, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 14/09/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression due to her dismissal from judicial office for making critical media statements about judiciary.

In 2003 the applicant stood as a candidate in general elections to the Russian Duma. During her campaign she gave interviews in which, among other things, she expressed doubts as to the independence of the courts in Russia and fears of “judicial lawlessness” within the country. She was not elected to the Duma and was reinstated in her previous judicial office.  Before her reinstatement, the President of the Moscow Judicial Council sought the applicant’s removal from office claiming that during her election campaign she had behaved in a manner incompatible with the authority and standing of a judge. In May 2004 the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow decided to remove the applicant from office, stating that she had “disseminated deceptive, concocted and insulting perceptions of judges and judicial system… [thus] degrading the authority of the judiciary”. The applicant subsequently appealed against that decision and requested a transfer of jurisdiction in her case for lack of impartiality, but to no avail. The European Court found that the penalty imposed on the applicant was disproportionately severe and capable of having a “chilling effect” on judges wishing to participate in public debate on the effectiveness of judicial institutions (violation of Article 10).

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

• Applicant’s submission: On 23/09/2010 the applicant’s representative indicated that the applicant’s request for reopening of proceedings following the judgment of the European Court was rejected by the Moscow City Court. This judgment was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 24/09/2010 this submission was transmitted to the Russian authorities for comments.

• Action plan/action report is still awaited in respect of individual and general measures as well as the authorities’ response to the applicant’s representative’s submission.

1758/02            Kazakov, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 05/06/2009

The case concerns the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, a former military officer, insofar as defamation proceedings against him for having in his private capacity submitted a written complaint to the competent military official concerning a unit commander, resulted in the obligation to issue an apology (violation of Article 10).

                       - 11 cases concerning freedom of expression[90]

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

73219/01          Filatenko, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

14888/03          Godlevskiy, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

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

15469/04          Krutov Aleksandr, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

34736/03          Obukhova, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

8237/03            Porubova, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

11751/03          Romanenko and others, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

- 2 cases concerning violations of the right to free elections

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

The case of the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others primarily concerns the authorities’ refusal to register the applicant party’s full list of candidates for the legislative elections in 1999 on the basis of section 51(11) of the Elections Act of 29/06/1999, then in force, on the ground that certain candidates, including the second on the list, had submitted incorrect information. Although this section only provided the disqualification of the entire party’s list in the event of “withdrawal” of one of the top three candidates, the Central Electoral Commission interpreted it broadly as encompassing all instances of “withdrawal” for whatever reasons. The applicants obtained a final decision in their favour at appeal in 1999, authorising them to register the party. However, this decision was eventually overruled by the Supreme Court in supervisory review proceedings at the application of a deputy Prosecutor general.

The European Court noted first that the use of supervisory review to set aside the final judgment infringed the principle of legal certainty. Secondly, the Court found that disqualification of all candidates for reasons unrelated to their conduct unduly impaired their passive voting rights and was contrary to the legal principle nulla poena sine sulpa (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

The case also concerns the denial of an effective remedy to the applicant in respect of the violation of their electoral rights since, at the material time, application for supervisory review could not have been set in motion by a party but only by state officials (violation of Article 13).

Lastly, finding in particular that the domestic proceedings concerning the applicants were conducted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, the Court held that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights in respect of the domestic authorities’ refusal to refund the election deposit to the applicant party (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Krasnov and Skuratov case concerns the authorities' decision to disqualify the second applicant from the elections to the State Duma in 2003 on the basis of his failure to submit accurate information on his employment and party membership. The European Court considered that this decision was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and did not correspond with the undisputed facts (violation of Article 3, Protocol No. 1). 

Individual measures: In the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and others case, the European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicant party in respect of pecuniary damage covering the damages sustained as a result of the failure to return the deposit. In the Krasnov and Skuratov case, the Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: No individual measure is required (since the applicants’ right to participate in future elections is not infringed).

General measures:

            1) Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The relevant legislation has been amended so that submission of inaccurate information in a CV is not a sufficient ground to be disqualified from elections. (Law no. 93-ФЗ of 21/07/2005; Law no. 51-ФЗ of 18/05/2005).

• This general measures is being assessed.

            2) Article 13: measures are being examined in the Ryabykh group of cases (52854/99, Section 4.3).

3) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to prevent further similar violations.

Publication and dissemination: The judgment in the case of Krasnov and Skuratov has been sent out to the Presidents of the Supreme Court, Central Election Comission, Constitutional Court, to the General Prosecutor, to the Plenipotentiary Representatives of the President of Russia in the Central and Siberian Federal Circuits, and has also been sent out to regional courts, prosecutors’ offices and electoral commissions. It has also been published in Russian on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice.

• Information is awaited on publication and dissemination of the judgment in the case of the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and others.

                       - 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

These cases concern the Russian authorities' failure in their obligation to protect the applicants’ private and home life against environmental hazards arising from a steelworks. The applicants lived in flats situated in the sanitary zone established around the Severstal Steel Works in Cherepovets, where the pollution level is much higher than the “maximum permitted limit” set forth by Russian law. Mrs Romashina obtained a flat outside the zone in 2000. As for the other applicants, the authorities failed to resettle them or provide compensation for eventual resettlement costs. Neither have the authorities taken effective measures to reduce the industrial pollution to an acceptable level and to ensure the compliance of the steel plant with domestic environmental standards. Consequently, the state had failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and the applicants’ effective enjoyment of their right to respect for home and private life (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The European Court has established the government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicants’ individual situation. The Court noted at the same time that the resettlement of the applicants in an ecologically safe area would be only one of many possible solutions.

The Court also pointed out that the individual measures in the present case may be closely connected to the general measures (see below) as the state has at its disposal a number of other tools capable of preventing or minimising pollution.

According to the Russian authorities, the applicants no longer live within a sanitary zone, i.e. since June 2004 when the new zone of 1 kilometre from the sources of pollution was established.

According to the applicants, the level of air pollution at their residences exceeds the maximum permissible limits provided by law.

• Clarifications requested in this respect in Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2007)7 are awaited.

General measures: All the information provided by authorities before the drafting of the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2007)7 has been summarised in that Memorandum, which is being updated on the basis of information provided by the applicants.

• In March 2010 the authorities submitted additional information, which is being assessed.

- 18 cases concerning failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments (housing disputes)

35259/04           Kuksa, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 15/09/2006

25749/05           Antonova, judgment of 25/09/2008, final on 26/01/2009

32048/03           Bezzoubikova, judgment of 10/02/2009, final on 10/05/2009

24229/03           Braga, Timofeyev and Kiryushkina, judgment of 06/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008

5271/05            Dubinskaya Lyudmila, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 04/03/2009

29063/05           Kardashin and others, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

26365/05           Kazantseva, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

18557/06           Lykov, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 12/10/2007

3344/04            Mayamsin, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008

9253/06            Mizyuk, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

38103/05           Nevolin, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008

12541/05           Novikov Ivan, judgment of 03/04/2008, final on 29/09/2008

38918/02           Sharov, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

17701/03           Sitnitskiye, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

38368/04           Sypchenko, judgment of 01/03/2007, final on 01/06/2007

13910/04           Tarasov, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 12/02/2007

18762/06           Telyatyeva, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 12/10/2007

35932/04           Zakharov, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 26/01/2009

These cases concern violations of the applicants' right of access to a court due to the Russian authorities' failure over several years to enforce final judicial decisions ordering them to provide the applicants with flats for which they were eligible on various grounds (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Sypchenko case also concerns a violation of the principle of legal certainty on account of the quashing of a final domestic judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour (violation of Article 6§1).

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

• Information or additional clarification is awaited on enforcement of domestic judgments delivered in the applicants' favour in some cases.

General measures:

            1) Non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions: General measures to improve enforcement procedures are being examined in the Timofeyev group of cases (58263/00, Section 4.3, for more details see Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)43).

• Information is awaited on action taken following the Interim Resolution with regard to the execution of domestic judgments granting social housing.

            2) Principle of legal certainty: General measures are being examined in the context of the Ryabykh group of cases (52854/99, Section 4.3).

- 12 cases concerning 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

These cases concern violations of the applicants' right to a court due to the Russian authorities' failure over several years to enforce final judicial decisions ordering them to provide the applicants with flats for which they were eligible as former servicemen (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). A number of cases concern the lack of an effective remedy against non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants as a result of delays in the enforcement of the court decisions in their favour.

• Information is awaited on the enforcement of domestic judicial decisions delivered in the applicants’ favour in the Konovalov, Kotsar and Sladkov cases.

General measures: A number of measures which are being taken by the Russian authorities to comply with these judgments were summarised in the Interim Resolution ResDH(2009)43 adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 1051st meeting (March 2009).

            1) Measures under way to ensure proper implementation of a substantial right

• Information provided by the Russian authorities: Article 15 (point 6) of the Law No4338-1 of 22/01/1993 on the Status of Servicemen provides in particular that former members of the armed forces shall be provided with housing within 3 months as from the date they were put on the housing waiting-list. However, the legislator did not specify the sources of the funding for the construction or purchase of such housing.

On 27/05/1998, a new Federal Law No76-FZ on the Status of Servicemen was adopted. Servicemen’s housing rights are now governed by Article 15 of this Law.

- Current legislative framework: It would appear that, according to the legislation in force, servicemen and former servicemen may be granted either accommodation through the conclusion of a social tenancy contract or by a state housing certificate which represents state housing aid from the federal budget for the purchase of a flat.

The implementation of these rights is subject to the sub-programme “Execution of the state’s obligations to provide housing for different categories of persons determined by federal legislation” of the federal housing programme for 2002-2010. On 21/03/2006, the government approved Rules on issue and payment of state housing certificates for the purposes of implementing this programme.

On the proposal of the Ministry of Defence, in 2007, the average amount of state housing aid provided through state housing certificates was increased by more than 50%.

• Information is awaited on the current amounts paid according to these certificates.

- Current statistics: In 2006 and 2007, the number of persons waiting for the provision of housing decreased by 27 500. Also, according to the statistics of the Federal Agency for construction and housing, during 1998-2007, 44 500 families of former servicemen improved their accommodation thanks to the state housing certificates. In addition, a construction plan for servicemen’s housing in 2008-2011 has been approved by the government. According to the forecasts of the Ministry of Defence, this plan will contribute to providing 167 000 families of servicemen with housing.

- The particular problem of servicemen dismissed from the armed forces before 01/01/2005: This problem arose with regard to servicemen who were dismissed from the armed forces and put on the waiting list before 1/01/2005. According to federal law No 122-FZ of 22/08/2004, these people were only entitled to state housing certificates. This Law removed the possibility previously granted to local administrations to provide them directly with accommodation.

The Law of 22/08/2004 was quashed by the Decision No. 5-P of 5/04/2007 of the Constitutional Court due to the limitation of the right of the persons dismissed before 1/01/2005 to receive only state housing certificates as compared to those of persons dismissed after 1/01/2005, who are also entitled to accommodation on the basis of social tenancy agreements.

Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Defence prepared the relevant amendments which are expected to be submitted to Parliament during the second and third quarters of 2008.

• Information is awaited on their progress.

            2) Interim measures taken pending the adoption of the aforementioned measures: To reinforce the social protection of members of the armed forces, the Ministry of Defence has prepared proposals to increase the amounts of compensation paid to these persons so that they can rent houses while waiting for the provision of housing.

• Information is awaited as to whether these proposals were accepted and on the current amount of such compensation.

            3) Domestic remedy in case of excessive length of enforcement proceedings: On 15/01/2009 the European Court delivered a pilot judgment in the case Burdov No. 2 (33509/04, Section 4.3) concerning the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions delivered in favour of a Chernobyl victim. This judgment became final on 4/05/2009. In this judgment, the Court in particular required the respondent state to introduce a remedy to secure effective redress for violations of the Convention on account of the state authorities' prolonged failure to comply with judicial decisions delivered against the state or its entities. The examination of general measures in this respect is being pursued in the framework of the execution of this pilot judgment.

            4) Publication and dissemination: All judgments are regularly disseminated to all authorities concerned together with circular letters.

- 2 cases concerning 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

These cases concern violations of the applicants' right of access to a court due to the Russian authorities' failure over several years to enforce final judicial decisions ordering them to provide the applicants with a flat for which they were eligible as judges according to Article 19, paragraph 3, of the Law On the Status of Judges of 26/06/1992 (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures:

            1) Teteriny case: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants as a result of delays in the enforcement of the court decisions in their favour.

As regards the execution of the judgment of 26/09/1994 of the Ezhvinskiy District Court ordering the Yemva Town Council to provide the applicants with the flat measuring no less than 65 m², the Russian authorities provided the following information: On 16/12/2005, the Ezhvinskiy District Court approved the settlement agreement signed between the Town Administration and the applicants’ representative.

According to the terms of this agreement, the Town Council was to provide the applicants with a flat measuring 83,1 m², of which 57,6 m² of living surface, with subsequent transfer of property to the applicants. The difference of 7 m² of living surface was to be compensated by the sum of 500 000 RUR. On 22/12/2005, this sum was transferred to the applicant as well as the property on the apartment. The enforcement proceedings were accordingly discontinued.

            2) Blinov and Blinova case

The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained. • Clarifications are awaited on whether the applicants were provided with a flat.

General measures: The Federal Law of 22/08/2004 No 122-FZ, in force since 1/01/2005, modified Article 19, paragraph 3, of the aforementioned Law on the Status of Judges by relieving local administrations of the duty to provide judges with housing. According to these amendments, judges are now to be provided with housing at the expense of funds allocated to courts by the federal budget and according to the procedure approved by the government.

Pending the setting up of this procedure, in 2005 the government established a provisional procedure for providing judges, prosecutors and investigators with housing (government decree of 6/12/2005 No. 737). This procedure was extended in 2006 and in 2007 by government decrees No. 440 of 17/07/2006 and No. 126 of 23/02/2007. It was proposed to extend this procedure in 2008.

As from 2007, the aforementioned funds from the federal budget are allocated within the Federal Programme On the improvement of the Russian judicial system (for more details on this programme, see the Kormacheva group of cases, Section 4.2).

• Latest developments: According to the government decree No.737 mentioned above, the Ministry of Regional development, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation prepared drafts of appropriate legislative acts. According to governmental order No. 320-p of 22/03/2007, a draft Federal Law modifying Article 19 of the Federal Law on Status of Judges was submitted to the Parliament. It is due to be examined in the second quarter of 2008.

• Information is awaited on the progress of this draft law.

- 2 cases concerning failure by domestic authorities to assist in enforcing final judicial decisions placing obligations on private third parties

23554/03           Makarova, judgment of 01/10/2009, final on 01/01/2010

36337/03           Kunashko, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

These cases concern the state's failure to assist the applicants in securing enforcement of judgments delivered in their favour in proceedings they initiated against private companies (violations of Article 6§1).

The Makarova case also concerns excessive length of civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

At the 1086th meeting (June 2010), the Russian authorities provided preliminary information on the payment of just satisfaction and dissemination of the judgment in the Makarova case.

- 4 cases concerning 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

These cases concern violations of the applicants' right to a court due to the Russian authorities' failure over several years to enforce final judicial decisions ordering them to provide the applicants with flats for which they were eligible as former Chernobyl workers (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants as a result of delays in the enforcement of the court decisions in their favour. The domestic judgments delivered in the applicants’ favour in the Malinovskiy, Mikryukov and Nagovitsyn cases were enforced.

• Information is awaited as to whether the domestic judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour in the Makarov case has been enforced.

General measures: A similar sub-programme based on state housing certificates for the Chernobyl workers was adopted for 2002-2010 (for more details see the Konovalov group of cases, 63501/00, Section 4.2).

- 64 cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

(See Appendix for the list of cases in the Kormacheva group)

All these cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings regarding employment, property and housing disputes (violations of Article 6§1). Some of the cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy to expedite the proceedings or provide the applicants with adequate redress for delays incurred (violations of Article 13).

The excessive length of proceedings was inter alia due to:

-           understaffing and the work overload of courts,

-           lack of automatic time-limits,

-           repeated procedural omissions,

-           poor technical conditions of court buildings,

-           numerous adjournments of hearings, due in particular to the failure to notify the claimants about the hearings in due time.

Individual measures: In almost all cases, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and domestic proceedings have been brought to an end.

• Information is awaited as to whether proceedings are closed in the Kolomiyets case.

General measures: The Russian authorities have taken and are taking a number of comprehensive measures to ensure the reasonable length of judicial proceedings:

1) Measures to improve the material conditions for the functioning of Russian courts:

The implementation of the Federal Programme on the development of the judicial system of the Russian Federation for 2002-2006 has already contributed to the improvement of material conditions for the functioning of Russian courts. The same Federal programme for 2007-2011 provides for 48 billion Roubles. It is also to be noted that, according to Article 31§1 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Judicial System of the Russian Federation, all issues related to the functioning of courts of general jurisdiction depend on the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

a) Measures being taken in the framework of these Programmes:

The Russian authorities provided extensive information, of which the main points may be summarised as follows:

- New judges are being recruited and trained and computer systems for the judiciary are being developed. The number of judges and their assistants was also significantly increased (in 2002-2006 more than 3 000 judges and 6 000 assistants) as well as their salaries. Also, a new post of judges’ aide was created and 13 775 persons were accordingly recruited.

- The reintroduction in the Russian judicial system of the justice of the peace contributed to reducing the workload of federal judges. Justices of the peace are now dealing with 39,4% of criminal cases and 73,1% of civil cases.

- As from 2001, 45 billion Roubles were provided in the framework of this programme, which resulted in the construction of 300 new court buildings and the renovation of 900 old buildings.

- On 27/12/2007, the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted Ruling No. 52 on deadlines for the examination by courts of the Russian Federation of criminal, civil and administrative cases, drawing lower courts' attention to important shortcomings of judicial decisions regarding the procedural time-limits for examining cases and announcing a number of measures to remedy them, e.g. the monitoring of judicial practice, etc.

- The rules of territorial jurisdiction of courts are about to be changed, so that proceedings are more geographically spread instead of being concentrated in some areas.

- The authorities are planning to introduce special divisions within courts composed of professional lawyers who would deliver preliminary consultations to citizens and to advise them on the course of action.

- Statistics: In 2004, 12,8% of cases were dealt with by district courts outside the procedural time-limits. In 2005, the number of such cases amounted to 10,9% and, in 2006, to 8,9%.

Consequently, in 2006 the workload of a district judge diminished as compared to 2001 from 8 to 3,9 criminal cases and from 24,4 to 10,7 civil cases.

• Additional information awaited: The Russian authorities are invited to keep the Secretariat regularly informed of progress in adopting these measures and to provide updated comparative statistical data on the practical impact of all the aforementioned reforms on the length of judicial proceedings. More details would also be useful on the training and awareness raising of judges and on the role of the Academy of Justice in this respect.

            b) Other measures taken:

Defendants' failure to attend hearings: In the Rybakov case, the length of proceedings was mostly due to the defendants' failure to attend the hearings. As the defendants were the Governor of St Petersburg and St. Petersburg Committee for Housing Policy, the Government of St. Petersburg issued on 04/07/2006 a special Decree “On measures to improve the legal support of the executive organs' activities in St. Petersburg” aiming in particular to ensure the proper and timely representation of the Governor and executive organs of St. Petersburg in courts.

2) Remedies available or envisaged before domestic courts in case of excessive length of judicial proceedings

a) Disciplinary liability of judges:

• Information provided by the Russian authorities:Each case of excessive length of proceedings gives rise to a disciplinary inquiry by the President of the court concerned and by the High qualification commission of judges of the Russian Federation. If it is established that the judge’s attitude contributed to the delays, disciplinary sanctions shall be pronounced.

• Assessment: Although these measures are welcomed as a part of a general monitoring mechanism, it is recalled that, in the Kormacheva judgment, the European Court considered that the disciplinary action against the judge responsible for delays before the higher judicial or other authorities could not constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13 (see § 61-62 idem).

            b) State civil liability:

Article 1070§2 of the Civil Code provides that damages inflicted in the course of the administration of justice shall be compensated provided that the fault of the judge has been established by a final judgment delivered by a criminal court.

On 25/01/2001, the Constitutional Court extended the possibility of establishing the fault of judges, under this Article, to civil courts. However it limited judges' responsibility under this provision to the fault committed when taking procedural decisions, e.g. decisions adjourning or scheduling hearings. The damages thus caused shall be compensated by the Treasury on the basis of Article 1069 of the Civil Code.

The Constitutional Court invited the Parliament to adopt special legislation providing courts competent to deal with these claims and a compensation procedure.

c) Adoption of a remedy in case of excessive length of judicial proceedings: The Federal Law “On compensation for violations of the right to a trial within reasonable time or of the right to the execution of a domestic court decision within reasonable time” (hereinafter referred to as “Compensation Act”) was adopted and entered into force on 4/05/2010. This Law also applies to judicial proceedings and provides both compensatory and an acceleratory remedies.

            3) Experience of other countries: The Russian authorities may wish to consider the experience of other countries which took comprehensive general measures to solve the problem of excessive length of civil proceedings (e.g. Interim Resolutions ResDH(2005)114 and ResDH(2004)72 concerning certain judgments against Italy and Resolution ResDH(2005)60 concerning the judgment in Horvat against Croatia). The authorities' attention was also drawn to the need to ensure the availability of effective domestic remedies (preventive and/or compensatory) at the national level, as emphasised in Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers on the improvement of domestic remedies.

            4) Publication and dissemination: Several of these judgments have been translated and published in the Bulletin of the European Court and sent out to all courts with a circular letter by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

- 12 cases concerning length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy

46133/99+         Smirnova, arrêt du 24/07/2003, définitif le 24/10/2003

4026/03            Bakhitov, arrêt du 04/12/2008, définitif le 04/03/2009

16595/02           Golovkin, arrêt du 03/04/2008, définitif le 29/09/2008

31849/05           Kazyulin, arrêt du 25/02/2010, définitif le 25/05/2010

28961/03           Kolchinayev, arrêt du 17/12/2009, définitif le 17/03/2010

19126/02           Komarova, arrêt du 02/11/2006, définitif le 02/02/2007

3023/03            Krivonosov, arrêt du 27/11/2008, définitif le 27/02/2009

22674/02           Oblov, arrêt du 15/01/2009, définitif le 15/04/2009

5511/05            Rodin, arrêt du 22/10/2009, définitif le 22/01/2010

4459/03            Sidorenko, arrêt du 08/03/2007, définitif le 08/06/2007

32805/03           Sukhov, arrêt du 18/06/2009, définitif le 18/09/2009

942/02              Zementova, arrêt du 27/09/2007, définitif le 27/12/2007

All these cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). Some of them also concern the lack of an effective remedy to expedite the proceedings or provide the applicants with adequate redress for delays incurred (violations of Article 13).

The Smirnova case also concerns unlawful privation of liberty (violation of Article 5§1), length of detention on remand (violation of Article 5§3) and a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life due to the withholding of one of the applicants’ internal passport upon her release (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: In almost all these cases, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and domestic proceedings have been brought to an end.

• Information is thus awaited in writing on the acceleration of criminal proceedings in the cases still pending.

General measures:

            1) Length of criminal proceedings:

Legislative measures: A new law setting up an effective remedy before domestic courts for excessive length of proceedings, has been adopted (see Nagovitsyn, No. 27451/09 and Nalgiyev No. 60650/09 (decision), 23/09/2010, §§ 15-20).

Regulatory measures: the Russian authorities have taken and are taking a number of comprehensive measures to ensure the reasonable length of judicial proceedings, which are being examined in the Kormacheva group of cases (53084/99, Section 4.2).

• The legislative and regulatory measures taken are being assessed in the light of the specific nature of the criminal proceedings.

            2) Unlawful privation of liberty, length of detention on remand in the Smirnova case are being examined in the group of case Klyakhin (46082/99, Section 4.2).

            3) Respect for private life on account on withholding the internal passport of one of the applicants in the Smirnova case:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to ensure that the internal passport of persons released from detention should not be retained by investigating authorities or a court and, accordingly, returned upon release.

            4) Publication and dissemination: Several of these judgments have been translated and published in the Bulletin of the European Court and sent out to all courts with a circular letter by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

• Information is awaited on dissemination and publication of all the judgments.

- 1 case against San Marino / 1 affaire contre Saint Marin

40786/98          Beneficio Cappella Paolini, judgment of 13/07/2004, final on 13/10/2004 and of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (more than 9 years and 9 months), to obtain partial restitution of land formerly belonging to the applicant institution which had been expropriated for the purposes of certain public works (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also relates to the lack of access to a court, in that neither the civil courts nor the administrative courts gave an answer to the applicant institution’s question concerning whether or not it had a right to restitution of that part of the expropriated land which was not used for the public works in question (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court also found that this failure to restore the land disturbed the proper balance between the requirements of the general interest and the obligation to protect the applicant institution’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: On 28/11/2006, the Court received a joint statement from the respondent state and the applicant to the effect that a friendly settlement had been reached on issues concerning Article 41. In particular, it provided for restitution of the land in question to the applicant institution. Being satisfied with the terms of this agreement, the Court decided in its judgments of 3/05/2007 to strike out the case.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

            1) Length of proceedings: This case presents similarities to the Vanessa Tierce case (69700/01, 1115th meeting, June 2011).

            2) Peaceful enjoyment of possessions:

• Information has been awaited since November 2004 on measures envisaged or taken by the respondent state to establish clear rules concerning the right to obtain restitution of land expropriated but not used. The Secretariat wrote to the respondent state in November 2004 concerning these issues.

• Information provided on 06/01/2005): The judgment of the European Court has been translated in Italian and made public ad valvas palatii (the traditional means of formally publicising a document in San Marino).

- 31 cases against Serbia / 31 affaires contre la Serbie

            - 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.

36500/05           Salontaji-Drobnjak, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing in proceedings which resulted in the partial privation of his legal capacity for several reasons (violation of Article 6§1). First, the applicant was excluded from the final hearing and had therefore been unable to challenge personally an expert report recommending the partial privation of his legal capacity. Secondly, the domestic court offered no reasoning for the statement in its decision that the applicant’s appearance in person at the final hearing would not have been “purposeful”. Lastly, the applicant had no opportunity to meet his state-appointed lawyer and to give her instructions as to how the case should be conducted at the last hearing.

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a court in proceedings to obtain restoration of his legal capacity for several reasons. First, although the applicant and his guardian lodged numerous requests to this effect, four years later a court of law has still to consider the merits of the full restoration of the applicant’s legal capacity. Secondly, no comprehensive psychiatric examination of the applicant has been undertaken in the context of the proceedings. Lastly, domestic law seems to provide no periodic judicial re-assessment of the applicant’s situation (violation of Article 6§1).

Lastly the case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in that the partial privation of his legal capacity has been disproportionate (violation of Article 8). The European Court noted in particular that whilst the limitation of the applicant’s legal capacity has been very serious, the procedure by which domestic courts decided it had itself been fundamentally flawed (see above). Moreover, some four years later and despite repeated requests to this effect, the applicant’s legal capacity has yet to be re-assessed on the merits by a court of law (§144).

Individual measures:

• Information is awaited on the applicant’s situation, in particular whether his legal capacity has been re-assessed, and on the possibility to reopen the impugned proceedings.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities (01/02/2010): The European Court's judgment has been translated into Serbian and published in the Official Gazette (No. 92 of 07/11/2009) as well as on the website of the Government Agent (www.zastupnik.gov.rs). The judgment was also published 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 as well as to the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Labour and Social Rights.

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

44698/06+         Vinčić and others, judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 02/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing due to judicial uncertainty stemming from the inconsistent adjudication of the District Court of Belgrade in respect of claims brought by many claimants in identical situations (violation of Article 6§1). This inconsistent adjudication of the claims, which were based on the same facts, continued even after the District Court in Belgrade, as the court of last resort in the matter, adopted an opinion on the legal issue concerned. Since the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ request to intervene, these conflicts were not institutionally resolved.

The European Court noted that all this created a state of continued uncertainty, which in turn must have reduced public confidence in the judiciary. It considered that the judicial uncertainty in question had in itself deprived the applicants of a fair hearing before the District Court in Belgrade (§56).

The European Court also observed that dozens of separate cases similar to the applicants’ seemed to be still pending at first or second instance.

Individual measures:

• Information is awaited on the possibility to reopen the impugned proceedings.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities (13/04/2010): The European Court's judgment has been translated into Serbian and published in the Official Gazette (No. 109 of 01/12/2009) as well as on the website of the Government Agent (www.zastupnik.gov.rs). The judgment was also published on the Internet page of the Paragraf legal magazine, with expert comments. The Government Agent forwarded the judgment to the Supreme Court of Cassation requesting its distribution to all courts. 

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

- 12 cases concerning failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic decisions

                        CM/Inf/DH(2010)25

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.

General measures: The general measures taken so far and the outstanding issues have been examined in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat. Members of the Secretariat visited Belgrade in October 2010 within the framework of the HRTF non-enforcement project and had bilateral talks with the Serbian authorities. A special focus has been placed on the measures taken and/or envisaged in respect of non-enforcement of domestic decisions rendered against the socially-owned companies (see below). Upon request of the Serbian authorities, the Secretariat is currently providing expertise on the draft Enforcement Act.

• Information is thus awaited on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum.

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.

General measures: The general measures taken so far and the outstanding issues have been examined in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat.

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities after the release of the Memorandum (24/06/2010): There are around 3 570 judgments rendered against socially-owned companies in respect of salary arrears and employment-related benefits with an aggregate amount of approximately RSD 2.7 billion (costs and interest not included). 

• Considering the important number of similar cases information is thus awaited on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum.

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.

General measures: The general measures taken so far and the outstanding issues have been examined in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat.

• Information is thus awaited on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum.

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.

General measures: The general measures taken so far and the outstanding issues have been examined in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat.

• Information is thus awaited on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum.

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.

General measures: The general measures taken so far and the outstanding issues have been examined in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat.

• Information is thus awaited on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum.

                        - 15 cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings and lack of an effective remedy

A. Family-related proceedings

3150/05            Jevremović, judgment of 17/07/07, final on 17/10/07

34922/07           Dimitrijević and Jakovljević, judgment of 19/01/2009, final on 19/04/2010

45251/07           M.V., judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 22/12/2009

22543/05           Nemet, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010

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

The Jevremović 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, these cases concern the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings (except the case of Dimitrijević and Jakovljević) (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: The impugned proceedings have been closed in the Jevremović case. However, they were still pending in the cases of M.V. and Nemet when the European Court rendered its judgments.

• Information is awaited on acceleration of the domestic proceedings in the cases of M.V. and Nemet.

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 4.1).

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 to measure better 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 to measure better 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 4.2) 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

8044/06            Čižková, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

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

29908/05           Simić, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

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 the lack of an effective remedy to expedite them (violations of Article 13) (except in the cases of Simić and 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, §19 in Simić).

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.gov.rs). The judgments were also published on a CD issued by the magazine Paragraf and on the Internet page of thatmagazine, 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.

- 80 cases against the Slovak Republic / 80 affaires contre la République slovaque

72094/01           Kvasnica, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009[91]

67149/01           Berková, judgment of24/03/2009, final on 24/06/2009[92]

- 78 cases of length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Jakub group) These cases mainly concern the excessive length of civil proceedings initiated between 1990 and 2000 and closed, in most of the cases, between 1999 and 2004 (violations of Article 6§1). The Jakub case and some others also concern the lack of an effective remedy against undue length of proceedings (violations of Article 13). A detailed summary of the relevant aspects of the judgments in question is to be found in the annotated agenda for the 1086th meeting (June 2010). Individual measures: • Information provided by the Slovak authorities: Proceedings are still pending in the following cases: Ščuryová, Hrobová, Lubina, Orel, Tomláková, Rišková, Softel No. 1, Softel No. 2, Dudičová, Eliáš, Jakubίčka et Magyaricsová, Komanický No. 2, Komanický No. 4, Rapoš, Španίr, Šidlová, Chrapková, Keszeli, Kučera, Majeríková, Sika No. 6. In the cases of Ščuryová, Hrobová and Lubina the Office of the Agent of the Slovak Republic has drawn the attention of the relevant courts to the conclusions of the European Court. • Information is awaited on the state of proceedings in the pending cases and, where appropriate, their acceleration. General measures: 1) Excessive length of civil proceedings: (a) Organisational and legislative measures: A detailed summary of the organisational and legislative measures taken and contemplated by the authorities is to be found in the annotated agenda for the 1086th meeting. (b) Statistical information provided by the Slovak authorities (letters of 11/01/2007, 24/10/2007, 18/03/08, and 28/04/09): The average duration of civil proceedings in recent years was as follows: 2002 15,18 months 2003 16,56 months 2004 17,56 months 2005 16,86 months 2006 15,40 months 2007 15.06 months (c) Publication and dissemination: European Court judgments against Slovakia are regularly published in Justičná Revue. d) Secretariat mission to Bratislava : Information on the current situation regarding length of proceedings in the Slovak Republic and on the measures envisaged was transmitted orally to the members of the Secretariat on 19 and 20/10/2010; this will later be provided in writing. • Information is awaited concerning the bill intended to assign judicial groundwork to principal auxiliary judges and to members of court registries together with other legislative or organisational plans to accelerate civil proceedings. • Information is also awaited on the current trend in the average length of civil proceedings for 2009 and 2010. 2) Remedies against the excessive length of civil proceedings: A reform of the Constitution adopted in 2002 introduced the possibility of a constitutional petition for complaints of violations of human rights protected by international treaties. The European Court has already found on several occasions that this new constitutional complaint represents an effective remedy in the sense of Article 13 of the Convention (see among others the admissibility decision in the case of Andrášik and others, of 22/10/2002). (a) The Constitutional Court's practice of rejecting appeals in cases in which the proceedings are no longer pending before the court responsible for the delay (Jakubίčka and Magyaricsová) • Information provided by the Slovakian authorities (letter of 11/01/2007): Examples of Constitutional Court judgments have been provided to demonstrate another practice of that Court: i.e. examining appeals taking account of the length of procedure before several levels of jurisdiction. In the view of the Slovakian authorities, the practice criticised by the European Court was inconsistently applied during the first five years of operation of the new remedy, and was due to the change in the law. The present trend is to align practice with the requirements of the European Court's case-law. In addition, the European Court's judgments in Jakub and Malejčik have been transmitted to the Constitutional Court. The Malejčik judgment has been published in Justičná Revue, No. 6-7/2006. • Assessment: in these circumstances, no other measure seems necessary. b) Inadequacy of the amounts awarded in compensation by the Constitutional Court The European Court has noted that in a number of cases, compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court does not correspond to the European Court's likely award under Article 41 for the period of delay, such compensation averaging less than 20% of a likely award by the European Court. Cases in the group which raise this issue include Magura, Rišková, Sika, Šidlová, Kuril, Tomláková, Ščuryová, Solárová and others, Šedý, Čavajda, Bič, Softel (No. 1, Softel No. 2, Martikán. Báňas, Eliáš Komanický No. 3, Komanický No. 4, Pobijaková, Rapoš, Španίr and Weiss. In Vičanová the European Court criticised the low level of compensation coupled with the ineffectiveness of the Constitutional Court's injunction to speed up the proceedings (§35‑36).  The European Court 's judgments in the Magura and Sika cases have been sent to the Constitutional Court by a letter of the Minister of Justice. On 07/11/2008 the Office of the Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court organised a seminar which was attended by the legal advisors of the Constitutional Court. The focus of the seminar was the question of inadequacy of the amounts awarded in compensation by the Constitutional Court in cases of excessive length. Participants' attention was drawn to the relevant case-law of the European Court and to an analysis of the individual Slovak cases concerned. The authorities submitted (08/01/2010) examples of twelve decisions rendered by the Constitutional Court between 17/02/2009 and 10/09/2009 concerning appeals against the excessive length of civil proceedings. Compared with the sums that should have been awarded by the European Court in this kind of cases, the sums awarded by the Constitutional Court are as follows: in five cases the sums vary between 25 and 42%, in five cases between 46 and 74% and in two cases they are above 100%. The Constitutional Court has ordered the courts to proceed without delay with all cases still pending before them.  • Assessment: in these circumstances, no other measure seems necessary. (c) The Constitutional Court's practice of rejecting appeals concerning stayed proceedings (case of Dobal): On 02/09/2008 the Slovak authorities confirmed that the judgment in Dobál had been circulated to the Constitutional Court under cover of a circular letter from the Agent of the Slovak Republic. The President of the Constitutional Court was requested to notify all the judges in the court of the judgment with the aim of avoiding similar violations. • Information is awaited on the current practice of the Constitutional Court in this respect (d) The Constitutional Court's practice of rejecting appeals where the excessive length of the proceedings was considered insufficient grounds for a claim (Dudičová) • Information is awaited: on any measures taken or envisaged. (e) Ineffectiveness of Constitutional Court injunctions to other domestic courts to expedite proceedings which have suffered excessive delay (Komanický No. 2, Vičanová): In relation to the decisions submitted on 08/10/2010 (see above), the Constitutional Court ordered the domestic courts to proceed without delay with  every case that was still pending (ten). • Information is awaited on the impact of the Constitutional Court’s decisions on the length of proceedings. The Deputies, 1.             adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)225 as it appears in the Volume of Resolutions; 2.             decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1108th DH meeting (March 2011).

- 78 affaires de durée de procédures civiles et d’absence de recours effectif (Voir Annexe pour la liste des affaires dans le groupe Jakub) Ces affaires concernent principalement 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). L’affaire Jakub et certaines autres affaires concernent également l’absence de recours effectif contre la durée de procédures (violations de l’article 13). Un résumé détaillé des aspects pertinents des arrêts en cause se trouve dans l’ordre du jour annoté de la 1086e réunion (juin 2010). Mesures de caractère individuel : • Informations fournies par les autorités slovaques : Les procédures sont toujours pendantes sans les affaires suivantes : Ščuryová, Hrobová, Lubina, Orel, Tomláková, Rišková, Softel n° 1, Softel n° 2, Dudičová, Eliáš, Jakubίčka et Magyaricsová, Komanický n° 2, Komanický n° 4, Rapoš, Španίr, Šidlová, Chrapková, Keszeli, Kučera, Majeríková, Sika n° 6. 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. Mesures de caractère général : 1) Durée excessive des procédures civiles : (a) Mesures organisationnelles et législatives : Un résumé détaillé des mesures organisationnelles et législatives prises et envisagées par les autorités se trouve dans l’ordre du jour annoté de la 1086e réunion. (b) Informations statistiques fournies par les autorités slovaques : 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. (d) Mission du Secrétariat à Bratislava : Des informations sur la situation actuelle quant à la durée des procédures en République slovaque et aux mesures envisagées ont été fournies oralement aux membres du Secrétariat les 19 et 20/01/2010 ; elles seront ensuite transmises par écrit.  • Des informations sont attendues sur le projet de loi destiné à confier aux référendaires principaux et aux membres des greffes le travail judiciaire de base ainsi que sur d’autres projets législatifs ou organisationnels visant à diminuer la durée des procédures civiles. • Des informations sur l'évolution actuelle de la durée moyenne des procédures civiles pour 2009 et 2010 sont également attendues. 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 la revue Justičná, n° 6-7/2006. • Evaluation : dans ces circonstances aucune autre mesure ne paraît nécessaire. (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 25 % 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 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 de procédures. 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 17/02/2009 et le 10/09/2009, concernant des recours contre la durée de 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. • Evaluation : dans ces circonstances aucune autre mesure ne paraît nécessaire. (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 n° 2, Vičanová) : Parmi les décisions soumises le 08/10/2010 (voir ci-dessus), la Cour constitutionnelle a ordonné aux juridictions du fond de procéder sans délai dans toutes les affaires qui étaient encore pendantes (dix). • Des informations sont attendues sur l’impact des décisions de la Cour constitutionnelle sur la durée des procédures. Les Délégués, 1.             adoptent la Résolution intérimaire CM/ResDH(2010)225 telle qu’elle figure au Volume de Résolutions ; 2.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ces points lors de sa 1108e réunion DH (mars 2011).

- 211 cases against Slovenia / 211 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):

- Publication and dissemination of the judgment: The European Court’s judgment has been published in the publication Examples from Practice published by the Slovenian police in 2008. It 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.

• Assessment: no other general measure appears to be necessary.

8673/05+          Eberhard and M., judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the first applicant’s right to respect for his family life due to the authorities‘ failure to take adequate and effective steps to enforce an administrative order giving him access to his daughter, and to conduct the subsequent court proceedings concerning his access and custody rights in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (violation of Article 8).

The European Court observed that the fines imposed on the child’s mother following her failure to comply with the order, final as of 03/10/2002, were never actually paid and that no measure was taken in response to her lack of co-operation (§135 of the judgment). Otherwise, no further coercive and/or preparatory measure was taken to create the necessary conditions to enforce the administrative order (§136).

With respect to the court proceedings, the European Court noted that they lasted for more than four years and six months and that an interim access order was issued three years after the proceedings had begun (§139). Moreover, the child’s mother refused to co-operate in the court proceedings without consequence, which resulted in a two-year delay for the expert examination (§§ 141-142).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded to the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The Court also noted that it had been submitted by the Government and not refuted by the applicant that he had quite regular contact with his daughter after June 2006 (§138).

• Information is awaited on whether the applicant has been able to have access to his daughter.

General measures: The authorities have not so far provided an action plan or action report on this case.

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

                       - 3 cases of length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy

28400/95          Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

28936/02           Acikgöz, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/05/2008

19611/04           Šubinski, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007

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 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.

- 6 cases against Spain / 6 affaires contre l'Espagne

36777/03           Iribarren Pinillos, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009[93]

16012/06           Gurguchiani, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010[94]

49151/07           Muñoz Díaz, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010[95]

37496/04           Iguall Coll, judgment of 10/03/2009, final on 10/06/2009[96]

                        - 2 cases concerning the right of access to a court[97]

423/03              Díaz Ochoa, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006

41745/02          Lacárcel Menéndez, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 11/12/2006

- 3 cases against Sweden / 3 affaires contre la Suède

41827/07           R.C., judgment of 09/03/2010, final on 09/06/2010

The case concerns the risk of a violation of Article 3 if the Swedish authorities were to enforce an order deport the applicant, an Iranian dissident, to Iran.

The European Court found that the applicant had substantiated his claim that he had been detained and tortured by the Iranian authorities following a demonstration in July 2001. According to information available from independent international sources, Iranians who returned home and were not able to prove that they had left the country legally ran a particularly high risk of attracting the authorities’ attention. The applicant claimed to have left Iran illegally and that had not been disputed by the government. Consequently, it was likely that his past would be revealed if he returned to Iran and that he would be detained and ill-treated.

Individual measures: On 2/07/2010 the Swedish Migration Board decided to grant the applicant a permanent residence permit in Sweden.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• An action plan / action report is awaited.

62332/00          Segersted-Wiberg and others, judgment of 06/06/2006, final on 06/09/2006

The case concerns unjustified interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private life in that the security service conserved certain information concerning their former political activities under the 1998 Police Data Act (violation of Article 8).

The European Court considered that this information was provided by law and pursued a legitimate aim, i.e. the maintenance of the order and the prevention of offences and the protection of national security. It nonetheless found that, while this interference was not disproportionate in respect of the first applicant, this was not the case with regard to the others.

The case also concerns unjustified interference of the freedom of expression and association of all the applicants except the first (violations of Articles 10 and 11).

The European Court considered that to keep on file personal data related to political opinion, affiliations and activities that had been deemed unjustified for the purposes of Article 8§2 ipso facto constituted an unjustified interference with the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11.

Finally the case concerns the absence of any effective remedy with respect to these violations (violation of Article 13). The European Court noted in a previous case that the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Chancellor of Justice could receive individual complaints and had a duty to investigate them in order to ensure that the relevant laws had been properly applied. However, neither of them is empowered to render a legally binding decision nor did they have specific responsibility for inquiries into secret surveillance or into the gathering and filing of information by the Secret Police. In the meantime, a number of steps had been taken to improve the remedies, in particular the establishment of the Records Board (empowered to monitor on a day-to-day basis the Secret Police's intelligence gathering and filing, and compliance with the Police Data Act) and the Data Inspection Board. The Court noted that the Records Board had no competence to order the destruction of files or the erasure or rectification of information kept in the files. The Data Inspection Board had wider powers but the Court had received no information indicating the effectiveness of the Data Inspection Board in practice.

Individual measures: The information in question has been eliminated from the records of the Swedish Security Service and is therefore neither searchable nor accessible to Swedish Security Service personnel.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 8:

The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to the Supreme Administrative Court, all administrative courts of appeal, the parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice with a memorandum on 15/01/2007 analysing the judgment. Relevant officers from the Swedish Security Service have also received information about the implications of the judgment for the activities of the Swedish Security Service. The judgment is available on the government’s human rights website, www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se, along with a detailed account of the judgment.

• Assessment: No further measure seems necessary.

            2) Violation of Articles 10 and 11:

• Assessment: As publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgments are also sufficient measures in this respect, no further measure appears necessary.

            3) Violation of Article 13:

• The Swedish authorities were invited to provide information on the functioning the Data Inspection Board and/or on the possible introduction of another effective remedy.

• Information provided by the Swedish authorities (April 2008): A new agency, the Swedish Commission on Security and Integrity Protection, has been established, partly as a response to the European Court’s judgment in this case. This Commission started operating in January 2008 in order to supervise the use of secret surveillance by crime-fighting agencies and the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service. Its mandate and operation are regulated by law. The Commission has taken over the functions previously held by the Records Board.

However, it has also acquired a new supervisory and control function aimed at improving individual access to a national legal remedy in cases involving secret surveillance and processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service. Thus, at the request of an individual the Commission is required to check whether they have been subject to secret surveillance by the Swedish Security Service under the Police Act and whether it was lawful. If the Commission decides that processing of personal data has taken place without legal basis or in violation of procedures, it must report the matter to the Data Inspection Board. The latter may then intervene, and if it turns out to be impossible to remedy the situation in any other way, or if the matter is urgent, the Board may prohibit the controller of personal data, i.e. the Swedish Security Service, from continuing to process the personal data in any other way other than storing it and may attach a conditional financial penalty to this prohibition. As a last resort, the Board may apply to the county administrative court for erasure of such personal data which has been processed in an unlawful manner. The Board must always initiate supervision procedures in the event of a complaint from an individual. In recent years there have only been a couple of such complaints per year. In cases, however, in which the Board has found, following a complaint, that incorrect processing of personal data has occurred within the police service, the authority keeping the records has promptly remedied the situation or else appealed against the Board’s decision. The Board has therefore not needed to take any further-reaching measure other than ordering the police to discontinue certain processing, eliminate certain data or take other similar measures.

Further, if the Commission on Security and Integrity Protection considers that a legal offence may have been committed, it must notify the Swedish Prosecution Authority, and if the Commission considers that the state’s responsibility may arise, it must report to the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the authority which deals with claims against the state for damages.

As of 1/01/2007 a new provision governing appeals was introduced in the Personal Data Act, stating that decisions directly affecting an individual taken under this Act by a public authority may be appealed to a general administrative court. The provision also applies to the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service, and means among other things that an appeal may be made to a general administrative court against a decision by the Swedish Security Service not to correct or eliminate personal data that the complainant asserts is being processed in contravention of active legislation. According to information provided by the Swedish authorities on 17/11/2009, individuals have requested the Swedish Commission on Security and Integrity to check on the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service in 118 cases. As of that date, 19 of those cases had not yet been concluded and were still awaiting examination. The Commission has not found in any of the concluded cases that personal data have been processed by the Swedish Security Service in contravention of the law. The government’s assessment of these statistics is that the Commission’s supervision and control of the processing of personal data by the Swedish Security Service is now fully operational as required by the new regulatory framework.   

Work is currently in progress at the Ministry of Justice to modernise the legislation regulating processing of personal data by the Police Service. The new provisions provide clearer and more detailed regulation of the area of elimination of data. For certain types of personal data a considerably shorter period before elimination, as compared to the current legislation, is envisaged. The proposal will also require the Swedish Security Service to take a special decision if data need to be kept longer than the ten-year limit for elimination. The Swedish government was planning to present the new bill before the Riksdag by the end of 2009.

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

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 website 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.

- 2 cases against Switzerland / 2 affaires contre la Suisse

13444/04           Glor, arrêt du 30/04/2009, définitif le 6/11/2009

L'affaire concerne une discrimination subie par le requérant en raison de son handicap dans la mesure où il a été contraint de payer une taxe d'exemption du service militaire dont il a été dispensé pour raisons médicales, alors qu'il souhaitait effectuer son service militaire (violation de l’article 14, combiné avec l’article 8).

La Cour européenne a noté que le droit suisse ne prévoyait pas d'exemption de la taxe litigieuse pour les personnes qui, comme le requérant, se trouvent sous le seuil d’un handicap de 40 % et qui ont des revenus modestes. La législation suisse ne prévoyait non plus des formes appropriées de service militaire ou civil pour ceux qui se trouvent dans une situation semblable à celle du requérant.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

• Informations fournies par les autorités suisses (lettre du 08/09/2010) : Par lettre du 15/07/2010 au Département Fédéral de Défense, le père du requérant a demandé le remboursement de la taxe en question. Par lettre du 24/07/2010, les autorités compétentes ont répondu qu’un tel remboursement dépendait d’une révision formelle de la décision du Tribunal Fédéral.

Les autorités suisses indiquent que selon la législation applicable une demande de révision peut être déposée auprès du tribunal Fédéral pour violation de la Convention, au plus tard 90 jours après que l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme est devenu définitif. Or, une telle demande n’a pas été formulée par le requérant dans les délais.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités suisses (lettre du 05/03/2010) : Les autorités suisses estiment que les autorités suisses vont, selon leur pratique habituelle, donner plein effet à l’arrêt de la Cour dans cette affaire. Elles indiquent que selon la pratique administrative modifiée, si les appelés qualifiés d’inaptes au service militaire et assujettis à la taxe d’exemption, expriment le souhait d’accomplir leur service (militaire ou civil), leur dossier est transmis au Département fédéral de la défense, de la protection de la population des sports afin que l’aptitude de ces personnes soit réexaminée, tenant également compte des possibilités de formes particulières de service, adaptées aux besoins de ces personnes. Jusqu’en 5/03/2010, les dossiers de 4 personnes ont été transférés.

• Evaluation : Les informations fournies par les autorités suisses sont en cours d'évaluation.

12675/05           Gsell, judgment of8/10/2009, final on 8/01/2010

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte injustifiée au droit du requérant à la liberté d’expression en ce que l’article 36, alinéa 1er, de la Constitution fédérale qui a constitué l’unique base juridique de la restriction imposée au requérant, à savoir l’interdiction de se rendre à Davos afin de participer à une conférence internationale organisée par les altermondialistes, ne satisfaisait pas à l’exigence de prévisibilité au sens de l’article 10§2 de la Convention.

La Cour européenne, après avoir souligné le principe selon lequel la responsabilité d’un Etat peut être engagée s’il n’a pas respecté son obligation d’édicter une législation interne, a estimé que les autorités nationales auraient dû appuyer la mesure litigieuse sur une base légale plus précise que l’article 36 alinéa 1er de la Constitution fédérale (violation de l’article 10).

Mesures de caractère individuel : la Cour européenne a accordé une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage matériel.

• Évaluation : Aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités suisses le 07/04/2010 : Le parlement du canton des Grisons a adopté le 28/11/2001 un nouvel article 8a à l’ordonnance sur la police cantonale. Cette ordonnance qui est entrée en vigueur le 01/01/2002, est libellée comme suit : « La police cantonale a la compétence d’ordonner, dans une situation donnée, les mesures nécessaires pour sauvegarder la sécurité et l’ordre publics et pour prévenir les menaces. Elle peut, en particulier, a) enjoindre à des personnes de quitter un lieu ou un périmètre ; b) interdire l’accès à des objets, des biens-fonds ou des périmètres ; c) interdire de séjourner dans des objets, des biens-fonds ou des périmètres ; (…)  En cas de non-respect d’un tel ordre, elle peut en imposer l’exécution par les moyens nécessaires et appropriés ». Cette disposition a été ultérieurement reprise dans l’article 12 de la nouvelle loi du 20/10/2004 sur la police du canton des Grisons, en vigueur depuis le 01/07/2005.

Le Tribunal fédéral et les autres autorités directement concernées ont été informés de l’arrêt et de son contenu. Par ailleurs, l’arrêt de la Cour a été publié dans le Rapport trimestriel sur la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne et son résumé diffusé auprès de tous les cantons et autorités fédérales.

• Informations fournies par les autorités suisses le 07/09/2010 : les autorités suisses ont communiqué des exemples de législations en vigueur dans les autres cantons de la Suisse (Genève, Zurich, Berne, Basel), concernant les compétences de la police dans la prise de mesures semblables à celle en question dans la présente affaire.

• Le Secrétariat est en train d’évaluer les informations fournies par les autorités suisses.

- 2 cases against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” / 2 affaires 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:

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. On 24/06/2010, the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s association claims as unsubstantiated. It noted that in its appeal against the decision of 31/07/2009 the applicant association had failed to indicate in which respect it had contested that decision. The Administrative Court thus concluded that the decision of 31/08/2009 had been made in conformity with the law.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court: On 23/08/2010, the applicant association challenged the decision of the Administrative Court before the Supreme Court. These 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, which dismissed the applicant’s association claims as unsubstantiated. The applicant association subsequently challenged this dismissal before the Supreme 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 proceedings are pending before the Supreme 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 Supreme 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.

1431/03            Stojanovski Trajče, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

The case concerns the violation of the right to liberty of the applicant, who is a deaf and mute, in that his continued psychiatric confinement in a closed hospital, ordered in 1998 following his conviction for an offence, has not been shown to have been necessary and justified during the second review of his confinement in 2003 (violation of Article 5§1(e)).

In 2003, the hospital lodged with the Štip Court of First Instance a second a proposal for the applicant’s conditional release, repeatedly citing his good behaviour and good relations with the personnel and other patients in the hospital. However, the domestic courts dismissed this request on the basis of information provided by the police regarding the applicant’s behaviour outside the hospital and the local inhabitants’ perceptions of him. In doing so, the courts disregarded the hospital’s opinion as not binding on them.

The European Court was not persuaded that the domestic courts had established that the applicant’s mental disorder was of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, or that the validity of the confinement could be derived from the persistence of such a disorder. Therefore, it found that the applicant’s continued confinement was manifestly disproportionate to his state of mind at that time and, as such, unjustified (§§36-37 of the judgment).

Individual measures:

• Information provided by the authorities (30/06/2010): On 22/03/2010, the Štip Court of First Instance released the applicant from his confinement in a psychiatric hospital.

• Assessment: In view of the circumstances, 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 authorities (30/06/2010): The European Court’s judgment has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravda.gov.mk). The judgment has been sent out, with an explanatory note to the relevant authorities.

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

- 701 cases against Turkey / 70 affaires contre la Turquie

38595/97           Kakoulli, judgment of 22/11/05, final on 22/02/06

The case concerns the killing of the applicants' husband and father, Petros Kakoulli in 1996 by Turkish soldiers on guard duty along the cease-fire line in Cyprus and the lack of an effective and impartial investigation into this killing (violations of Article 2).

The European Court found that the killing of Mr Kakoulli was neither proportionate nor absolutely necessary for the purpose of “defending any person from unlawful violence” or “effecting a lawful arrest” (§120) and concluded a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2.

The Court further found that the investigation conducted by the authorities immediately following Mr Kakoulli’s death “was neither effective nor impartial” (§128) and found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2.

Individual measures: The main outstanding matters are set out below (for more detail on the examination of this issue see the public notes for the 1078th meeting, March 2010).

Following the European Court's judgment, the question of a potential reopening of the investigation was examined promptly by the Turkish authorities. A preliminary analysis of a possible reopening was carried out as early as July 2006 by the security forces, who examined in detail all the deficiencies identified by the European Court.

On the basis of this examination, the Prosecutor General, in a decision of 28/03/2007 completed with a letter of 21/05/2008, found that a new investigation was impossible at present, because some of the witnesses were Greek Cypriots, the persons working at the time for the United Nations in Cyprus have left the territory since, the body of Mr Petros Kakoulli was buried in the southern part of Cyprus and 12 years have passed since the facts of the case.

Moreover, the Turkish authorities indicated that no period of limitations exists in the relevant legislation of the “TRNC” concerning the incriminated facts; certainly, a person convicted or previously acquitted cannot be judged twice for the same facts, but proceedings which ended with a decision not to bring charges, as in the present case, might be reopened if new facts were brought to the attention of the authorities.

At its last consideration of this case (1078th meeting, March 2010) the Committee of Ministers recalled that the Cypriot authorities had indicated that it would be possible to carry out a further forensic examination of Mr Kakoulli's body. The Committee consequently found that the other grounds indicated in support of the decision of 28/03/2007 (difficulty of locating witnesses and time elapsed) did not seem sufficient to justify the absence of a new investigation and considered that, in these circumstances, it was for the competent Turkish authorities to reassess the possibility of carrying out a new investigation into the death of Mr Kakoulli and invited them to submit information in this respect.

On 26/03/2010 the Turkish authorities provided information on the re-assessment by the Prosecutor General of the possibility of carrying out a further investigation into Mr Kakoulli’s death.

• This information is currently being assessed.

General measures:

1) Excessive use of force and firearms: At the 1078th meeting (March 2010), the Committee of Ministers noted that it was not clear from the information provided that the regulatory framework governing the use of firearms by the security forces requires that the use of force must be “absolutely necessary”, that is to say strictly proportionate to the circumstances, and invited the Turkish authorities to provide clarifications in this respect.

• Bilateral contacts are under way concerning the questions identified by the Committee.

2) Lack of effective investigation into killings by and/or with the tacit agreement of state forces: This issue is being examined in the framework of the Isaak group of cases (44587/98, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

In the context of the execution of the Kakoulli judgment, the Turkish authorities have explained that military or civilian persons may complain to superiors or the military prosecutor general of any offence they consider to have been committed by a serviceman. Such complaints are processed immediately with a view to opening an investigation into the situation. The competent court in such cases is the Security Forces Tribunal.

            3) Publication and dissemination:An article on the judgment was published in the Turkish Cypriot Bar Association Review and the judgment sent out to all relevant authorities, including to the security forces and the “President of the TRNC”.

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.

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).

Individual and general measures: The European Court, ruling on an equitable basis, awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the damage sustained by her as a result of violations of Articles 2, 3 and 14 of the Convention.

• Action plans provided by the Turkish authorities on 17/05/2010 and 29/06/2010 are being assessed.

48939/99           Öneryıldız, judgment of 30/11/2004 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns a methane explosion which occurred in April 1993 in Ümraniye, Istanbul at a rubbish tip, causing a landslide and killing 9 close relatives of the applicant and destroying his house and movable property.

The applicant's house was situated in a slum quarter where dwellings had been built without authorisation on land surrounding the rubbish tip which had been used jointly by four district councils under the authority and responsibility of Istanbul City Council. An expert report drawn up in May 1991 drew the authorities' attention to, among other things, the fact that no measures had been taken at the tip in question to prevent an explosion of the methane generated by the decomposing refuse. However, no measures had been taken by the authorities.

After the explosion, criminal and administrative investigations had been carried out into the case and the mayors of Ümraniye and Istanbul were brought before the courts with the authorisation of the Administrative Council to prosecute. In April 1996 both mayors were convicted of "negligence in the performance of their duties" under Article 230 of the Criminal Code and were fined and sentenced to the minimum three-month term of imprisonment. Their sentences were subsequently commuted to fines, the enforcement of which was suspended. The applicant subsequently brought compensation proceedings, holding the authorities liable for the death of his relatives and the destruction of his property. In November 1995 the authorities were ordered to pay the applicant the equivalent at the material time of 2 077 euros and 208 euros for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages. Those amounts have not been paid to the applicant.

As to the responsibility borne by the state for the deaths, the European Court found that the Turkish authorities knew or ought to have known that there was a real and immediate risk, at least after the notification of the report of May 1991, to a number of persons living near the Ümraniye municipal rubbish tip and that they had failed to take necessary and sufficient measures to protect the lives of those individuals (violation of Article 2).

As to the responsibility borne by the state as regards the nature of the investigation, the Court found that the national courts had failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the death of the applicant's close relatives capable of securing the full accountability of the authorities or the effective implementation of provisions of domestic law guaranteeing respect for the right to life, in particular the deterrent function of criminal law. In this respect, the Court criticised the fact that the Administrative Council dropped the charges against the Ministry of the Environment and the Government authorities and sought to limit the charge to "negligence" under Article 230 of the Criminal Code, which did not relate to life-endangering acts or to the protection of the right to life (violation of Article 2).

Having regard to the above reasons, the Court also found that the Turkish authorities had failed in their positive obligation to take the necessary steps to avoid the destruction of the applicant's house (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Lastly, the Court found that the administrative proceedings had not provided the applicant with an effective remedy either in respect of the state's failure to protect the lives of his relatives or the destruction of his household goods, since the amounts awarded by domestic courts had never been paid (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The damage caused by the violations, including the unpaid sums awarded by domestic courts, has been covered by the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court.

General measures: The Turkish authorities submitted the following information on 10/06/2005 and 08/04/08 in reply to the Secretariat's letter of 01/03/2005 requesting a plan of action for the execution of this judgment:

1. Following the explosion, the Ümraniye tip has been covered with earth by decision of the local council which has also installed air ducts on it. Furthermore, a rehabilitation project has been put into force by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, which has planted trees on the area of the former site of the tip and has had a sport grounds laid down.

2. The new Criminal Code, which came into force on 01/06/2005, sanctions both intentional and unintentional disposal of hazardous substances in a way that might cause damage to the environment. Any person disposing such hazardous substances shall be liable to terms of imprisonment ranging from two months to two years. The Code also provides that the terms of imprisonment shall be increased if the disposal of hazardous substance leaves permanent damage to human health and to the environment.

3. Article 257 of the new Code provides that any public official acting contrary to the requirements of public duty in a way that might constitute damage to the public or cause damage to individuals shall be liable to a term of imprisonment from one year to three years'. If the public official neglects his or her duty or carries it out with delay, he or she shall be liable to a term of imprisonment from six months to two years.

4. The full text of the Regulation on Solid Waste of 1991 with subsequent amendments has been submitted to the Secretariat by the Turkish authorities.

5. A strategic plan for solid waste management in Istanbul, guided by the environmental regulations of the European Union, was prepared and put into practice.

6. With respect to the prevention of slums, Articles 154 and 184 of the new Penal Code which came into force on 1/06/2005 provides criminal penalties against those who occupy, use, alter, construct unauthorised buildings on, change the boundaries of, or prevent the use of places belonging to the public. Any person who encourages these activities by providing utilities to such illegal occupations shall also be criminally liable.

7. The judgment of the European Court was published and distributed. It is available on the websites of the Ministry of Justice and the Court of Cassation.

Regarding the violation of Article 13, the measures taken to ensure the executive’s respect for domestic court decisions are being examined within the Kılıç Ahmet group of cases (38473/02, 1086th meeting, June 2010).

• Information awaited: Having regard to the Court's finding concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation carried out at the domestic level following the explosion, the Turkish authorities are expected to clarify as to what measures they have taken or envisage taking so that a system of effective investigation capable of securing full accountability of state agents could be provided (including the issue of ensuring prosecutions even where administrative authorisations are required to prosecute).

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.

- 60 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 Secrétariatque 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.

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).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

- 19 cases concerning the excessive use of force to break up unlawful but peaceful demonstrations

74552/01           Ataman Oya, judgment of 05/12/2006, final on 05/03/2007

31451/03           Açık and others, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

33245/05           Akman Ahmet, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

32124/02+         Aldemir Nurettin and others, judgment of 18/12/2007, final on 02/06/2008

6758/05            Aytaş and others, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010

25/02               Balçık and others, judgment of 29/11/2007, final on 29/02/2008

26235/04           Canlı Cemalettin No. 2, judgment of 09/02/2010, final on 09/05/2010

34027/03           Dur, judgment of 18/09/2008, final on 18/12/2008

16999/04           Karabulut Samüt, judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009

33112/04+         Karatepe and others, judgment of 07/04/2009, final on 07/07/2009

12728/05           Kop, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

9207/03            Öktem Evrim, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

23143/04           Özdemir Nisbet, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

68263/01           Şahin and others, judgment of 21/12/2006, final on 21/03/2007

4327/02            Saya and others, judgment of 07/10/2008, final on 07/01/2009

42234/02           Ümit Erdem, judgment of 17/07/2008, final on 17/10/2008

21831/03           Uzunget and others, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

863/04              Yaşar Emine, judgment of 09/02/2010, final on 09/05/2010

25499/04           Yılmaz Serkan and others, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

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 les affaires Balçık et autres, Aytaş et autres, Emine Yaşar et Özdemir Nisbet 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, Akman Ahmet, Kop, Cemalettin Canlı 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.

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques le 29/07/2010 : les peines prévues par la loi n° 2911 sur les réunions et les manifestations, pour ceux qui résistent aux forces de sécurité durant des manifestations publiques, ont été réduites. Par ailleurs une nouvelle disposition a été introduite dans la loi n° 2911 (article 34 A) concernant les mineurs qui participent à des manifestations publiques. Selon cette disposition, les mineurs ayant participé à des manifestations en vue de soutenir une organisation terroriste, ne seront pas considérés comme membres de cette organisation et aucune poursuite à cet effet ne sera ouverte à leur encontre.

• 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

46827/99          Mamatkulov and Askarov, judgment of 04/02/2005 - Grand Chamber[98]

16348/05          Mostafa and others, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008, rectified on 10/06/2009

30471/08           Abdolkhani and Karimnia, judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the risk that the applicants might be subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if they were to be removed to Iran or Iraq.

The case also concerns the lack of an effective and accessible remedy in relation to the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as their contention that their removal to Iran or Iraq would have consequences contrary to this provision was never examined by the national authorities (violation of Article 13). 

The European Court noted that the lack of any response by the national authorities regarding the applicants’ allegations amounted to a lack of the “rigorous scrutiny” that is required by Article 13 of the Convention and that by failing to consider the applicants’ requests for temporary asylum, to notify them of the reasons for not taking their asylum requests into consideration and to authorise their access to legal assistance while in police headquarters, the national authorities prevented applicants from raising their allegations under Article 3 in the framework of the temporary asylum procedure provided by the 1994 Regulation and Circular No. 57. The Court also stated that the applicants could not apply to the administrative or judicial authorities for annulment of the decision to deport them to Iraq or Iran as they were never served with the deportation orders made in their respect. The Court considered that the judicial review in deportation cases in Turkey cannot be regarded as an effective remedy since an application for annulment of a deportation order does not have suspensive effect unless the administrative court specifically orders a stay of execution of that order.

Lastly, the case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention due to the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention pending deportation and setting time-limits for such detention (violation of Article 5§1); the violation of their right to be informed of the reasons for their continued detention (violation of Article 5§2) and the absence of a remedy whereby the applicants could obtain judicial review of their detention (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures:

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities on 03/11/2009 and action plan dated 30/06/2010): The Ministry of the Interior granted the applicants temporary, 5-month residence permits on 21/10/2009, allowing them to reside in Kırklareli province after 29/10/2009. Following the acceptance of the applicants’ asylum request by Sweden, the General Directorate of Security ordered the competent administrative authorities to allow the applicants to leave Turkey on 18/01/2010 for humanitarian reasons and requested the authorities to facilitate the preparation of their applicants’ travel documents.

According to a letter from the applicants’ representative dated 22/04/2010, Mr. Abdolkhani was still residing in Turkey.

• Information is awaited on the applicants’ whereabouts, namely whether they are still in Turkey or have left for Sweden.

General measures: (information provided at a bilateral meeting on 15/03/2010 or in the action plan dated 30/06/2010):

            1) Specialised migration and asylum affairs office: In the framework of the preparation for Turkey’s accession to the EU and the adoption of the EU acquis in the country’s legal system, a specialised Migration and Asylum Affairs office has been set up in the Ministry of the Interior. The mandate of this office is to co-ordinate the preparation of a draft Aliens Law and Asylum Law. The draft Aliens Law aims to consolidate legal provisions concerning aliens currently set out in various legal texts and to establish a legal basis for lawful migration in a specific law. The draft Asylum Law will, with the contribution of the UNHCR, codify legislation concerning asylum regulated in the 1994 Regulation and circulars, in accordance with international standards. The Aliens Law and Asylum Law will harmonise Turkish legislation with international conventions and the acquis of the European Union. The authorities also state that, to ensure co-ordination between the relevant state authorities, the specialised Migration and Asylum Affairs office had established a Task Force on Asylum and Migration, which meets every two months, with the participation of representatives of the competent authorities, of the IOM, UNHCR and an EU delegation with observer status. A Co-ordination Group for the prevention of irregular migration has also been established within Migration and Asylum Affairs office to identify measures against irregular migration.

            2) Publication and dissemination of the judgment - influence on the preparation of the new legislation: The translation of the judgment has been distributed to the all relevant authorities. To assess the requirements arising from the judgment and revise the legislation, two co-ordination meetings were first organised by the specialised on Migration and Asylum Affairs office on 14 and 18/10/2009 with the participation of representatives from the Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, General Secretariat for the EU Affairs, General Directorate for Security, General Command of Gendarmerie, Turkish Coast Guard Command. On 4/11/2009, the judgment and the legislative changes planned in consequence were presented to the representatives of all relevant state authorities and the EU, UNHCR, IOM by the Office on Migration and Asylum at a meeting of the Task Force on Asylum and Migration. The new legislation is still being drafted. Updated versions of the draft law have been examined at meetings of the Task Force. On 15-16/03/2010, officials from the Ministry of the Interior held consultation meetings with the officials from the relevant Council of Europe bodies on the revision of Turkish legislation on aliens and asylum.

            3) Draft legislative measures: Part 8 of the draft Aliens Law concerning “expulsion”, and the draft Asylum Law are highly important for the prevention of similar violations in the future.

-           Prevention of new violations of Article 3: According to the draft Aliens Law, an alien may not be expelled if there is a real risk of his or her facing capital punishment, torture, or inhuman or ill-treatment in the destination country, even if the alien concerned falls within the category of those whose expulsion should be ordered by law. For its part, the draft Asylum Law is being prepared in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgments of the European Court, European Court of Justice and EU acquis as well as the principle of “non-refoulement” established in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

-           Prevention of new violations of Article 13: It is planned that the Ministry of the Interior should have authority to grant refugee status as well as providing secondary protection to non-refugees who cannot be deported because of the state’s obligations under Article 3 of the Convention. The UNHCR should be actively involved in this decision-making process. The draft Aliens Law, provides that an alien or his/her legal representative may lodge objection against an expulsion decision before the administrative court. Such objections have an automatic suspensive effect with respect to the expulsion procedure.

-           Prevention of new violations of Article 5 §1: It is planned, in order to comply with the judgment, that the draft Aliens Law will ensure that the detention of asylum and temporary asylum seekers has a strictly defined statutory basis in domestic law, establishing procedures for ordering and extending detention in view of deportation and setting time-limits for such detention. According to the draft text, aliens subject to a final deportation order would be free to leave Turkey within 7 to 30 days. However, in exceptional cases, Governor’s offices may decide to place them in administrative detention (idari gözetim) until their deportation. The maximum duration for such detention would be up to 6 months, extensible in particular circumstances for a further maximum of 6 months.

-           Prevention of new violations of Article 5§§2, 4: According to the text of the draft Aliens Law, an alien or his or her legal representative would be informed promptly of the reasons for ordering administrative detention (idari gözetim kararı) in a language which he/she understands. To provide effective judicial review of such detention orders, it is planned that the alien concerned would be formally notified of his/her right to lodge objection against this order, and of how to use this right their other rights an obligations concerning the process. To this end, aliens would have access to a notary, lawyer or other legal representative, as well as to consular representatives of their country, UNHCR officials, or the representatives of concerned NGOs concerned and relatives. They would be entitled to bring proceedings before the Magistrate Courts against the administrative detention orders.

• The information provided is being assessed.

• Information is awaited on progress in adopting these draft laws.

            - 12 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

22190/05           Kapçak, arrêt du 22/09/2009, définitif le 22/12/2009

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

37619/05           Özen Mehmet Nuri, arrêt du 02/02/2010, définitif le 02/05/2010

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 (violations 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, Özkartal et Özen Mehmet Nuri, 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, Özkartal et Özen Mehmet Nuri, 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).

- 3 cases concerning the independence and impartiality of military disciplinary courts

39429/98           Bayrak, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 24/09/2007

30200/02           İrkin, judgment of 23/09/2008, final on 23/12/2008

27341/02           Veyisoğlu, judgment of 26/06/2007, final on 26/09/2007

These cases concern the lack of independence and impartiality of military disciplinary courts in proceedings against the applicants under Articles 56, 38 (in the Bayrak and Veyisoğlu cases), 55, 49 and 53 (in the İrkin case) of Law No. 477 (violations of Article 6§1). The applicants were sentenced to 75, 40 and 30 days' imprisonment respectively.

The European Court found that the members of the military disciplinary court were under the orders of the military hierarchy and their term of office was limited to 1 year. Furthermore the European Court noted in İrfan Bayrak judgment that the superior (appeal) court offered no appropriate guarantees to remedy these deficiencies.

Individual measures: The applicants are no longer detained.

General measures: On 13/02/2008, the Turkish authorities indicated that preparatory work was under way for the necessary measures to be adopted.

• Information is awaited on measures taken to prevent new, similar violations.

                        - 93 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).

- 6 cases mainly concerning freedom of expression - military conviction for incitement to abstain from compulsory military service[99]

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

                       - 4 cases concerning freedom of expression – broadcasting legislation

64178/00+         Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. No. 1, judgment of 30/03/2006, final on 30/06/2006, rectified on 05/12/2008

6587/03            Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.Ş., judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008, rectified on 03/03/2008

11369/03          Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. No. 2, judgment of 04/12/2007, final on 02/06/2008, rectified on 05/12/2008

10129/04           Özgür Radyo – Ses Radyo-Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. No. 3, judgment of 10/03/2009, final on 10/06/2009

These cases concern violations of the freedom of expression of the applicants, broadcasting companies, due to warnings and licence suspensions imposed in 1998, 1999 and 2000 by the Turkish broadcasting regulatory authority (RTÜK) under Articles 4 a), g) and j) of Broadcasting Law No. 3984, concerning defamation and incitement to violence and to separatism. Unlike the RTÜK and the Turkish administrative courts, the European Court considered that the statements at issue did not incite to violence or hate and covered questions of general interest. It furthermore took into account the fact that the applicant companies had quoted the sources of the statements, which had already been published by other media without being prosecuted. Furthermore, the Court considered that the penalties had been disproportionately severe and therefore not necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: In the Özgür Radyo cases, the Court awarded the applicant company just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages sustained but not in respect of pecuniary damage, as the applicant company did not submit elements allowing such damage to be quantified. In the case of Nur Radyo, the Court did not award any damages.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears to be needed.

General measures: These cases concern the Turkish broadcasting system and the interpretation given by RTÜK and administrative courts to Article 4 of Law 3984.

• In the light of the many significant legislative and other measures taken in the last few years to improve freedom of expression in Turkey (see the Inçal group, 22678/93, Section 4.2), information is needed on the impact, if any, of such measures on the current application of the provisions at the origin of this case.

• Information provided on the amendments to the broadcasting law as well as the provisions concerning sanctions introduced by Law No. 4756 in May 2002: In the light of these amendments, a suspension of licence is considered as a last resort. The first sanction available is a warning or the obligation of the broadcasting company to present apologies. If the broadcasting company continues to violate the provisions of the broadcasting law as stated in Article 4 of Law No. 3984, the programme in question may be suspended. If such violation is repeated, progressive administrative fines may be imposed. However this mechanism of gradually increasing sanctions does not apply if the violation concerns the provisions defined in the items a), b), and c) of the §2 of Article 4. In this case, broadcast is suspended for a month and, if there is a repeated violation, the broadcast shall be suspended for an indefinite period and the broadcasting licence shall be revoked.

• Assessment: The legislative amendments are welcome. However, it is observed that Article 4 (a) of Law No. 3984 is excluded from the progressive sanctions mechanism. Therefore, any sanction to be imposed under Article 4 (a) will have the result of being a disproportionate sanction. In any event, neither the amended Law No. 3984 nor the practice of RTÜK and the case-law of Turkish administrative courts suggests that they employ the criteria of incitement to hatred and violence in the application of these provisions.

The authorities indicated that the judgment of the European Court in the Özgür Radyo case had been translated and published on the internet site of Ministry of Justice.

• Information is still awaited on additional general measures taken or envisaged to prevent similar violations in the future, in particular the introduction of the criteria of incitement to hatred and violence. Information is also awaited on the dissemination of the European Court's judgments with a circular to administrative courts and the RTÜK.

- 2 cases concerning freedom of expression (ban on the future publication of periodicals on the basis of Article 6§5 of the Anti-Terror Law (No. 3713)

14526/07+         Ürper and others, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

55036/07+         Ürper and others, judgment of 26/01/2010, final on 26/04/2010

These cases (sixteen applications), which were lodged with the European Court by the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of seven newspapers, concern the suspension of the publication and dissemination of these newspapers for periods ranging from 15 days to a month, between November 2006 and December 2007, by decisions of the İstanbul Assize Court taken under Article 6§5 of Anti-Terror Law (violations of Article 10).

In the Ürper (1) case, the European Court observed that the suspension of the publications had not been imposed only on selected reports but on the future publications of entire newspapers whose content had been unknown at the time of the domestic courts’ decisions. It considered that less draconian measures could have been envisaged by the Turkish authorities, such as confiscation of particular issues of the newspapers or restrictions on the publication of specific articles. The European Court held that the practice of banning the future publication of entire periodicals on the basis of Article 6(5) of Anti-Terror Law (Law no. 3713) went beyond any notion of “necessary” restraint in a democratic society, and instead amounted to censorship in violation of Article 10.

The European Court observed that the suspension of the publications had not been imposed only on selected reports but on the future publications of entire newspapers whose content had been unknown at the time of the domestic courts’ decisions. It considered that less draconian measures could have been envisaged by the Turkish authorities, such as confiscation of particular issues of the newspapers or restrictions on the publication of specific articles.

The European Court, considering that the violation of Article 10 of the Convention originated in a problem of a systemic nature, arising out of the Turkish legislation, held that the respondent state should revise Article 6(5) of Law No. 3713 to take account of the principles enunciated in paragraphs 35-45 of the judgment with a view to putting an end to the practice of suspending the future publication and distribution of entire periodicals (§52).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

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. 

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.

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, 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.

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (lettre du 12/10/2010) : l’article 129§3 de la Constitution qui donnait la possibilité au législateur de soustraire une catégorie de sanctions disciplinaires (avertissement et le blâme) au contrôle juridictionnel, a été amendé par l’article 13 de la loi d’amendement constitutionnel n° 5982 du 07/05/2010, entrée en vigueur le 12/09/2010. Désormais, l’article 129§3 de la Constitution dispose que les sanctions disciplinaires ne peuvent être soustraites au contrôle judiciaire.

2) Absence de recours effectif à l’encontre des décisions du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature :

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (lettre du 12/10/2010) : La loi d’amendement constitutionnel n° 5982, entrée en vigueur le 12/09/2010, a également modifié l’article 159 de la Constitution sur le Conseil supérieur des juges et des procureurs. L’article 159 dispose désormais que « les décisions du Conseil ne peuvent faire l’objet de recours devant les instances judiciaires, à l’exception des sanctions disciplinaires de révocation de la fonction ». Par conséquent, l’amendement en question, tout en maintenant l’absence de recours judiciaire à l’encontre des décisions du Conseil, y introduit une exception, concernant la sanction disciplinaire de révocation définitive de la fonction.

Les autorités turques indiquent que pour ce qui concerne les autres décisions du Conseil, un projet de loi sur la formation et les principes de fonctionnement d’un « comité d’examen des oppositions » est en cours de préparation. Les autorités indiquent que les autorités chargées de la préparation du projet de loi tiennent compte des considérations de la Cour européenne dans cette affaire, afin d’assurer l’indépendance de ce comité pour qu’il réponse aux exigences de l’article 13 de la Convention.

Par ailleurs, l’arrêt de la Cour européenne dans cette affaire a été publié et distribué aux autorités concernées.

• Des informations sont attendues sur le contenu et l’adoption du projet de loi concernant le comité d’examen des oppositions.

22766/04           Kara, judgment of 30/06/2009, final on 30/09/2009

This case concerns an unjustified interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant, the president of the Anatolian Solidarity Association for Prisoners’ Families, in that he was convicted under Article 37 § 1 of the former Law on Associations (Law No. 2908) for organising a hunger-strike and distributing leaflets in protest against F-type prisons (violation of Article 10).

The European Court considered that the applicant had been seeking to raise public awareness of issues that had already been brought to public attention by the mass media, namely hunger-strikes in prisons and detention conditions in F-type prisons, in which, under the new prison regime, dormitories had been replaced by living units for one to three prisoners. His actions – distributing leaflets and the hunger-strike – had not incited the public to go on hunger-strike or use violence but had been carried out to show solidarity with prisoners, among them a close relative of his, on a matter of topical interest in Turkish society. His criminal conviction had therefore been disproportionate to the aim pursued and had not been necessary in a democratic society, in breach of Article 10.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

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

This case concerns an unjustified interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant, a journalist, in that charges were brought against him in 1998, under Article 95 of the Military Criminal Code, for having published articles which were considered by the military court to undermine soldiers’ trust in their hierarchy.

Given the high level of protection to be given to political expressions and the fact that the applicant’s articles did not insult or criticise any specific person, the Court concluded that the criminal action against the applicant had been a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression, the more so since he was also subjected to 42 days’ pre-trial detention (violation of Article 10).

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

General measures: The case presents some similarity with other cases against Turkey concerning violations of freedom of expression (see the Inçal group of cases, 22678/93, 1086th meeting, June 2010). It is, however, the first case dealing with the interpretation of the Military Criminal Code.

            1) Legislative measures: The Turkish authorities have indicated that following the European Court’s judgment extensive amendments adopted on 5/07/2006 to the Code on the Establishment and Criminal Procedure of the Military courts. Article 4 of the amendments provides that most offences committed by civilians in time of peace – including that at the origin of the Yasar Kaplan case – shall be tried by civil courts. Furthermore, Article 53 of the amendments provides a right to a retrial in cases where the European Court finds that decisions of military courts violate the Convention.

• Assessment: The measures taken so far are welcome. However, given the fact that the European Court concluded that the criminal action against the applicant, and his 42 days’ pre-trial detention had been a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression, further information is awaited on additional measures envisaged to prevent similar violations in the future.

            2) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court has been translated into Turkish and circulated to the appropriate authorities, including the Turkish Ministry of Justice and the Turkish General Staff. A Turkish translation of the Court’s judgment was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice at: www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/karar/yasarkaplan.doc.

28582/02           Asan, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 27/02/2008

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression due to the seizure of his book following an order of the Istanbul State Security Court dated 21/01/2002, on the basis of a number of legal provisions including Additional Article 1§2 of the Law on the Press, No. 5680 (violation of Article 10).

The European Court expressed doubts as to the predictability of the seizure measure, in particular as the Law on the Press as applicable at the material time invoked no less than 40 articles of the Penal Code which meant that the order was far from clear. The Court further noted that the publication in question was a work of historical, cultural, ethnographic and linguistic research with no political intent, and that the seizure measure had been applied to the second edition, the first having been published without interference.

The Court therefore found that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society.

Individual measures: In a judgment dated 12/08/2003, the State Security Court acquitted the applicant on the ground that Article 8 of Law No. 3713, under which he had been judged, had been repealed. The seizure was lifted at the same time.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: The Law on the Press was amended in June 2004: Article 25 of the new law, No. 5187 on seizures, distribution bans and sale of printed publications provides greater clarity as it now only invokes ten specific Penal Code provisions and provides that such measures can only be applied where an investigation or a prosecution has been opened.

• Information is accordingly awaited as to whether the new provisions are capable of preventing new, similar violations. Information is also awaited on the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to competent authorities and courts to raise their awareness of the requirements of the Convention as interpreted by this judgment.

34797/03           Ulusoy and others, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 24/09/2007

This case concerns the refusal by the Prefect of Ankara to authorise the production of a stage play in Kurdish, by a decision based on the provisions of Article 17 of Law No. 2911, Article 8 of Law No. 3713, Article 11 of Law No. 5442 and Article 1 of Law No. 2559.

The European Court considered that such refusal based on these provisions was not “necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 10). The European Court noted that Turkish law does not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of the discretionary power of authorities concerning preliminary restrictions and that the legislation concerned does not offer adequate safeguards to prevent possible abuses in the application of such restrictions.

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

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• The authorities’ reply to the initial phase letter of the Secretariat on 12/12/2007 is awaited.

19353/03           Saygılı and others, judgment of 08/01/2008, final on 08/04/2008

The case concerns the unjustified interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression in that they were not able to prove their good faith or invoke public interest in the context of civil proceedings for defamation lodged against them (violation of Article 10).

In September 2001, the applicants published two articles in the daily newspaper Evrensel concerning the case of İrfan Bilgin in which the European Court found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention due to a disappearance during police custody. The articles suggested that the prosecutor in charge of the investigation had falsified the investigation report concerned. The prosecutor instituted civil proceedings for non-pecuniary damages against the applicants alleging that the articles were misleading and defamatory. The domestic courts held that the claimant’s personality rights had been infringed and ordered the defendants to pay compensation under Article 24 of the Civil Code and Article 49 of the Code of Obligations. The courts considered that there was no evidence in the case-file of the European Court that the claimant had failed his duties.

The European Court recalled that persons subject to judicial actions on account of statements made on subject of general interest, like in the present case, should be able to invoke their good faith to exonerate themselves. It recalled in this respect that the law applicable at the time made no specific provision for exceptions on the grounds of truthfulness and public interest. It considered that the impugned articles made allegations based on an analysis of the judgment in the İrfan Bilgin case, the material evidence it had taken into account, the statements made by the prosecutor and the witnesses interviewed by the Commission, and the statements made by the applicant’s lawyer in the case in question, all of which the applicants had been entitled to use, not only in their articles but also to prove their good faith and the truthfulness of their affirmations in the proceedings before the domestic courts. It concluded that there was no reason to doubt that the applicants had acted in good faith.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered.

• Assessment: No other individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• The authorities are invited to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to introduce the exceptions of truthfulness and public interest in Turkish law through legislation and/or case law.

35839/97          Pakdemirli, judgment of 22/02/2005, final on 22/05/2005

The case concerns the disproportionate amount of the damages awarded against the applicant in defamation proceedings against him (violation of Article 10). The proceedings were brought against the applicant in 1995 (at the material time a Member of Parliament and the vice-president of the opposition party) by the President of the Republic on account of a speech he made in which he described the President, among other epithets, as a liar and slanderer. The President sought compensation for defamation and insults to him both in person and in his capacity as President of the Republic under Article 49 of the Code of Obligations. In July 1995 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to pay the equivalent of approximately 55 000 euros in damages. Following the dismissal of his request for leave to appeal, the applicant paid the sums he had been ordered to pay, which corresponded at the time, with interest, to the equivalent of approximately 60 000 euros.

The European Court observed that, in determining the amount of the damages, the Turkish courts had applied the criterion of “the parties’ socio-economic status” laid down in Article 49 of the Code of Obligations in a way which departed from the normal practice and without taking into account the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 4 of the Civil Code, using it not to preserve a balance between the parties’ respective situations, but to fix the amount of damages to be awarded as high as possible. In addition, while fixing the amount of compensation, the domestic courts based themselves on the absence of the criminal proceedings which would have been applicable if the applicant had not been covered by parliamentary immunity and thus turned the damages awarded into a form of civil fine. Furthermore, the assessment of the civil penalty had been made not in the light of the wrong suffered by the claimant but by way of over-protecting the status of President of the Republic.

The European Court therefore concluded that the award that the applicant was ordered to pay could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” and that it was not proportionate to the aim pursued by the national legislation.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded a global sum of 35 000 euros for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, thus compensating the disproportionate nature of the penalties imposed by the domestic courts.

• Assessment: no further measure seems to be necessary.

General measures: The European Court’s judgment has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice at: www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/karar/ekrempakdemirli.doc.

• Information is expected on possible measures that Turkish authorities envisage to ensure that domestic courts strike a fair balance in determining the amounts of compensation in defamation cases where highly political public figures are involved.

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.

35570/02           Özbek and others, judgment of 06/10/2009, final on 06/01/2010[100]

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.

75569/01           Çetinkaya, arrêt du 27/06/2006, définitif le 27/09/2006

L’affaire concerne une violation du droit du requérant à la liberté d’association, en raison de sa condamnation pénale en 2000 (en vertu de l’ancien article 37 de la loi n° 2908 du 6/10/03) pour avoir été présent, en sa qualité de dirigeant d’une association de droits de l’homme, à une conférence de presse qui s’est transformée, de fait, en un rassemblement qualifié d’illégal par les autorités, indépendamment d’une quelconque appréciation quant aux modalités pacifiques ou non de son déroulement ou du comportement du requérant.

La Cour européenne a noté que le cadre juridique ayant servi de base à la condamnation du requérant s’analysait en une mesure générale d’interdiction, cantonnant l’exercice de la liberté de réunion pacifique dans des limites incertaines, dépendantes de l’appréciation opérée à cet égard par les autorités nationales quant aux buts et statuts des associations. La Cour a par conséquent conclu que de telles mesures affectaient indéniablement à la fois la liberté d’association et l’état de la démocratie et n’étaient par conséquent pas « nécessaires dans une société démocratique » (violation de l’article 11).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La condamnation du requérant au paiement d’une amende a été assortie d’un sursis en vertu de la loi n° 647. En outre, sa condamnation a été effacée de son casier judiciaire.

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : La loi n° 2908 à l’origine de la violation constatée dans cette affaire a été abrogée et remplacée par une nouvelle loi sur les associations (n° 5253 du 4/11/04), entrée en vigueur le 23/11/04.

Cependant, la nouvelle loi sur les associations (n° 5253 du 4/11/04) contient toujours une interdiction similaire à son article 30a) qui dispose que les associations ne peuvent mener d’activités qui ne correspondent pas aux buts et formes d’activités définies dans leurs statuts. Par ailleurs, l’article 32o) de cette loi prévoit une peine d’amende pour les dirigeants d’associations qui auraient transgressé l’interdiction prévue par l’article 30a) précité.

• Des informations sont donc attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point lors de leur 1108e réunion (mars 2011) (DH), à la lumière d'informations à fournir sur les mesures générales. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on general measures.

- 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

Ces affaires concernent 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.

30946/04           Kaya et Seyhan, arrêt du 15/09/2009, définitif le 15/12/2009

Cette affaire concerne l'atteinte injustifiée au droit des requérantes à la liberté d'association en raison d’une sanction disciplinaire qui leur a été infligée pour avoir participé à une journée d’action organisée afin de protester contre le projet de loi relatif  à l’organisation de la fonction publique en discussion au parlement (violation de l'article 11).

La Cour européenne a relevé que la sanction imposée aux requérants 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.

L’affaire concerne également l’absence de contrôle juridictionnel d’une sanction disciplinaire en vertu de l’article 129 de la Constitution et de l’article 136 de la loi n° 657 (violation de l’articla 13).

Cette affaire diffère de l’affaire Urcan (23018/04+) (rubrique 4.2) en ce que dans cette dernière affaire, les requérants avaient été condamnés au pénal, en application de l’article 236 de l’ancien code pénal pour des motifs similaires.

68959/01           Enerji Yapı-yol Sen, arrêt du 21/04/2009, définitif le 06/11/2009

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit d’association du requérant, un syndicat de fonctionnaires œuvrant essentiellement dans le secteur du cadastre et de l’énergie, en ce qu’une circulaire publiée en 1996, interdisait aux fonctionnaires de participer à une journée nationale de grève organisée par la Fédération des syndicats du secteur public pour la reconnaissance du droit à une convention collective.

La Cour européenne, tout en reconnaissant que le droit de grève des fonctionnaires pouvait être soumis à certaines conditions, a estimé qu’une interdiction générale s’étendant à l’ensemble des fonctionnaires, n’était pas compatible avec la liberté syndicale au sens de l’article 11 de la Convention. Les restrictions légales au droit de grève devraient définir aussi clairement que possible les catégories de fonctionnaires concernées (violation de l’article 11).

La présente affaire se diffère de l’affaire Demir Baykara (34503/97) (rubrique 6.2.) en ce que cette dernière affaire concernait le droit des fonctionnaires de former des syndicats et de conclure des conventions collectives avec leur employeur.

42981/04           Övüş, arrêt du 13/10/2009, définitif le 13/01/2010

Cette affaire concerne essentiellement une violation du droit de la requérante au respect de sa vie familiale

En janvier 1999, la requérante, résidente en Allemagne, avait introduit une action en divorce à l’encontre de son époux devant le tribunal de Heidelberg. Le tribunal a prononcé la divorce et a attribué le droit de garde des enfants à la requérante. Ce jugement a reçu l’exequatur en Turquie par un jugement rendu par le tribunal de grande instance d’Adana en juin 2001.

Entretemps, en mars 2000, l’époux de la requérante avait également introduit une action en divorce devant le tribunal de grande instance d’Adana qui, par un jugement rendu en octobre 2000, a prononcé la divorce et a attribué le droit de garde des enfants à l’époux de la requérante. Or, ce jugement n’a pas été dûment notifié à la requérante.

Lorsqu’en juin 2001, la requérante s’est rendue en Turquie accompagnée de ses enfants, son ex-époux, s’appuyant sur le jugement rendu en octobre 2000, a obligé la requérante à rentrer en Allemagne sans les enfants.

La Cour européenne a estimé d’une part qu’en l’absence de notification adéquate, la requérante avait été privé de la possibilité de participer à la procédure de divorce introduite par son mari devant le tribunal de grande instance bien que l’issue de cette procédure ait eu des répercussions importante sur sa vie familiale (violation de l’article 6§1). La Cour a également constaté que les autorités nationales avaient omis de déployer des efforts adéquats et suffisant pour faire respecter au moins le droit de visite de la requérante de manière à lui permettre de rétablir le contact avec ses enfants.

A cet égard, la Cour européenne a estimé, compte tenu de l’âge des enfants, que l’Etat défendeur devait prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour soutenir les efforts de la requérante dans le but de rétablir progressivement le lien maternel entre la requérante et ses enfants (§71).

4914/03            Turnalı, judgment of 07/04/2009, final on 06/11/2009

L’affaire concerne la violation du droit à la vie privée de la requérante en raison du rejet par les juridictions internes de sa demande tendant à l’établissement de sa filiation paternelle (violation de l’article 8).

En février 2001, la requérante, née en 1954, a engagé une action en constatation de paternité devant le tribunal de grande instance d’İzmir et a demandé l’établissement de sa filiation avec un certain H.Y. Or, le 3/07/2001, le tribunal a débouté la requérante de sa demande pour non-respect du délai de prescription d’un an qui commençait à courir à compter de la date de naissance, en vertu de l’article 296 de l’ancien Code civil.

La Cour européenne a constaté que même si l’article 303 du nouveau Code civil avait créé une exception à la règle de prescription en la matière permettant aux justiciables d’exciper de l’existence de circonstances pouvant justifier le retard, l’amendement législatif n’avait aucunement profité à l’intéressée et celle-ci n’avait jamais eu la possibilité de faire valoir ses arguments pouvant justifier son retard et de faire examiner le bien-fondé de sa demande (violation de l’article 8).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a estimé que le redressement le plus approprié en l’espèce serait de faire bénéficier la requérante de la possibilité d’un examen au fond de sa requête.

Mesures de caractère général

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (20/09/2010) : Les autorités turques estiment que l’exécution de cet arrêt nécessite l’amendement des dispositions  pertinentes du Code civil. Elles indiquent que les autorités concernées, prenant en considération la nécessité d’une telle modification, sont actuellement en train d’évaluer la possibilité d’insérer cet amendement dans le cadre du projet de loi concernant les amendements du Code civil.

• Des informations sont attendues sur le projet de loi indiqué par les autorités turques.

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.

12863/02          Işıldak, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 30/12/2008

The case concerns the unjustified interference with the applicant's right to respect of his home as a result of the search carried out in his workshop, which was a part of his home, by police officers without a search warrant. The search in question was carried out in 2000 in accordance with Article 97 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure which allowed the police to conduct searches without prior authorisation and had given them unfettered discretion to decide whether a search should be carried out and how extensive it should be.

The European Court found, without prejudice to the recently adopted legislation, that there was no reason to justify the lack of prior judicial review for a search to be carried out without a warrant. It also observed that at the material time the applicant did not have an effective remedy whereby he could obtain judicial review of the lawfulness and necessity of the search (violation of Article 8).

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

• Assessment: No other individual measure appears necessary in the particular circumstances of the case.

General measures: The Code of Criminal Procedure was replaced with a new Code on 1/06/2005 and therefore Article 97 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure which is at the origin of the violation in this case is no longer in force.

According to Article 119 of the new Code (Law No. 5271), law enforcement officials may conduct searches in private dwellings, workplaces or properties that are not open to the public, upon a judge’s decision or, in cases where delay would be detrimental, upon the written order of the public prosecutor. The search warrant or order shall clearly specify the reasons for the search as well as the name and address of the person or the item to be searched for and the time-limit of validity of the warrant or order. If private dwellings, workplaces or properties are to be searched without the public prosecutor’s presence, two members of the community council in that district or two neighbours are required to be present during the search.

• Assessment: It is observed that the new legislation requires prior judicial authorisation for searching private dwellings, workplaces or properties that are not open to the public. This is a welcome development.

• However, considering the European Court’s finding that at the material time the applicant did not have an effective remedy whereby he could obtain judicial review of the lawfulness and necessity of the search, further information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent similar violations in this respect.

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).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

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).

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.

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.

- 7 cases mainly concerning the failure to communicate the Public Prosecutor's opinion before the Council of State[101]

33446/02           Meral, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

19728/02           Akgül, judgment of 17/7/2008, final on 17/10/2008

9907/02            Araç, judgment of 23/09/2008, final on 23/12/2008

2841/05+          Ekmekçi and others, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 26/08/2009
38012/03           Hasırcı, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 06/07/2009
41296/04           Karaduman and Tandoğan, judgment of 03/06/2008, final on 17/09/2008

37829/05          Yılmaz Melek Sima, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 06/04/2009

- 2 cases concerning the unfairness of certain judicial proceedings in which the 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 judgments o the judicial authorities.

- 7 cases mainly concerning failure to communicate the written opinion of the Public Prosecutor before the Supreme Military Administrative Court

43980/04           Miran, judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009

44292/04           Cihangül, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

8543/05            Dikel, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

43696/04           Erdoğan Okan, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

45874/05           Karayiğit Yavuz Selim, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 27/01/2010

38287/04+         Tamay and others, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 01/03/2010

2843/05            Okur Tevfik, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

The cases concern the violation of the applicants' right to a fair trial due to the failure to provide them with a copy of the written opinion of the Public Prosecutor before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, and the fact that they had been denied access to “classified” documents in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The cases present 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 cases (except Dikel and Karayiğit) also present similarities to the Çorum group of cases (59739/00, Section 5.1) regarding the failure to communicate classified documents in the case-file.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

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).

The authorities confirmed that 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.  

The applicant has since indicated that he does seek a retrial.

• Information is awaited in respect of the applicant’s request for a retrial and any possible avenues of redress available in this respect.

General measures:

• An action plan / report was requested from the authorities at the first presentation of this case in December 2009. Noting that the judgment became final over a year ago, an action plan / action report is still awaited from the authorities with respect to general measures.

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.

16330/02           Gülmez, judgment of 20/05/2008, final on 29/09/2008

The case concerns first, the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing in the context disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the prison authorities while he was detained on remand. The European Court noted that according to Article 6 of Law No. 4675, appeals against disciplinary sanctions were examined in camera on the basis of the case-file and that the applicant had no opportunity to defend himself with the assistance of a lawyer (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in that visiting rights were restricted for a year. The European Court noted that the legislation at the material time did not indicate in precise terms the punishable acts and related penalties and left the authorities a wide degree of discretion in determining disciplinary sanctions. This situation did not meet the “quality of law” requirement under the Convention (violation of Article 8).

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

Individual measures are linked to the adoption of general measures (see below).

General measures: Under Article 46 of the Convention, the European Court concluded that the violation in this case stemmed from the Turkish legislation, namely Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judges. There are a number of similar applications pending before the Court, which is indicative of a systemic problem.

In this respect it took note of the entry into force of the Law on the Enforcement of Sentences and of Preventive Measures in 2005 and of the new provisions on disciplinary questions which clearly specify what are punishable acts and what the penalties are. It noted nonetheless that there had been no change in respect of the legal lacunae concerning the absence of hearings and the ban on defendants’ defending themselves in person or through counsel.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged with a view to allowing public hearings in disciplinary proceedings in such circumstances, in the light of the European Court’s findings (§§ 60 and 63 of the judgment).

25585/02           Emen, arrêt du 26/01/2010, définitif le 26/04/2010

La présente affaire concerne une violation du droit du requérant à un procès équitable dans la mesure où il a été condamné à la réclusion à perpétuité pour des activités terroristes, dans une mesure déterminante sur le fondement des dépositions des témoins obtenues dans le cadre d'une autre procédure pénale à laquelle le requérant était étranger. Après voir constaté que le requérant ne s'était pas vu offrir la possibilité, à aucun stade de la procédure, d'interroger ou de faire interroger les auteurs des déclarations litigieuses, la Cour européenne a conclu que les principes de contradictoire et de l'égalité des armes n'avaient pas été respectés en l'espèce (violation de l'article 6§§1 et 3d) de la Convention).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a octroyé au requérant une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral subi.

Elle a en outre indiqué que la forme la plus appropriée de redressement serait un nouveau procès conforme aux exigences de l'article 6, si le requérant le demande.

Des informations sont attendues à cet égard.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Un plan d'action / bilan d'action est attendu.

17570/04           Hun Burak, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in that he was arrested and convicted of buying and selling drugs through a police operation using an agent provocateur (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that the actions of the state agent had gone beyond the mere passive investigation of crime, and that there was no evidence that the applicant was engaged in criminal activity before the intervention of the agent provocateur. The European Court observed that the agent's actions had had the effect of inciting the applicant to commit the offence concerned and that there was no indication that the applicant would have committed it without his intervention (§§ 43-47).

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

- 9 cases concerning the violation of the right of access to a court due to the 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

11011/05           Akdeniz Eyüp, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010

54179/00+         Amaç and Okkan, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008

37952/04           Aslan Sabri and others, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

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, Akdeniz) or because appellants represented by counsel could not be deemed to require legal aid (Bakan, Yiğit Mehmet and Suna, Aslan, 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, Aslan 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 entitled 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.

18342/03           Davran, judgment of 03/11/2009, final on 03/02/2010

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right to access to the Court of Cassation, due to the authorities’ failure to notify a first-instance judgment.

The European Court noted that it was not Article 28 of the Notification Act (Law No. 7201) which was applicable in the applicant’s case, providing notification through publication in the Official Gazette when it is not possible to locate the persons concerned, but Article 19 – requiring the notification of a judgment to a prisoner though the prison authorities, and that it would have given him an effective right of access to the Court of Cassation(violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court further noted the shortcomings in the arrangements for publication of the judgment, and pointed out that it was incumbent on the state to put in place an information network between the judicial authorities across the country (§§20, 33, 45, 46).

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

39523/03           Öztürk Selin Aslı, arrêt du 13/10/2009, définitif le 13/01/2010

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit d’accès de la requérante à un tribunal dans la mesure où les juridictions nationales lui ont refusé la qualité pour agir afin de demander l’exequatur du jugement de divorce de son père, décédé peu après le prononcé du divorce.

En février 2001, le tribunal de grande instance de Bensheim avait prononcé la divorce du père de la requérante et de son épouse de nationalité allemande. En mai, le père de la requérante est décédé sans demander l’exequatur de ce jugement de divorce en Turquie.

En décembre 2001, la demande de la requérante concernant l’exequatur de ce jugement de divorce a été rejetée définitivement par la Cour de cassation. Cette dernière a considéré, suivant sa jurisprudence établie en la matière, que seules les parties à la procédure initiale pouvaient demander l’exequatur d’un jugement de divorce rendu à l’étranger.

La Cour européenne a considéré que la limitation litigieuse avait porté atteinte à la substance même du droit de la requérante d’accès à la justice en ce qu’elle avait constitué un obstacle insurmontable pour la requérante lors de sa tentative de revendication de la totalité de la succession de son père défunt. Sur la base de ces mêmes considérations la Cour a également constaté une violation du droit au respect de ses biens (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

La Cour a également noté que la nouvelle loi relative au droit et à la procédure internationaux privés, entrée en vigueur le 12/12/2007, permet à toute personne ayant un intérêt juridique dans la délivrance de l’exequatur d’en faire la demande.

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.

14719/03           Bora, judgment of 09/02/2010, final on 09/05/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a court due to the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in his favour. The Istanbul Administrative Court gave judgment concerning the title deed to the applicant’s land but the national authorities failed to take any decision to give effect to the judgment. The land had been transferred to bona fide third persons while the proceedings before the administrative courts were still pending, and despite the apparent stay of execution of the challenged decision by the administrative authorities.

The European Court considered that the question of Article 41 was not ready for decision.

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

                       - 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 same private 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.

- 2 affaires concernant la non-exécution d'un arrêt d'une juridiction du travail pour défaut de paiement des frais de justice

25321/02           Ülger, arrêt du26/06/2007, définitif le 26/09/2007

18896/05           Yılmaz Osman, arrêt du 08/12/2009, définitif le 08/03/2010

Ces affaires concernent une violation du droit d’accès des requérants à un tribunal. L’affaire Ülger concerne également une violation du droit du requérant au respect de ses biens.

Dans l’affaire Ülger, 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).

L’affaire Yılmaz Osman est fondée sur des faits semblables. Elle concerne un litige entre le requérant et son employeur en raison d’un accident de circulation alors qu’il voyageait pour le compte de la société qui l’employait. A la différence de l’affaire Ülger, dans cette affaire la Cour n’a pas constaté de violation du droit du requérant au respect de ses biens. 

Mesures de caractère individuel: La Cour européenne a octroyé aux requérants 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.

- 40 cases concerning 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

6982/04            Akdüz and others, judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 22/12/2009

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

28270/02           Ateş Hüseyin and Ateş Mehmet, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

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

3595/05            Bozüyük, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

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

17597/03           Fırat and others, judgment of 06/10/2009, final on 06/01/2010

38323/04           Kaçar and others, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 22/10/2008

3224/05            Kaplan Mehmet Ali and others, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009, rectified on 09/06/2009

29016/04           Kaplan Mehmet, judgment of 09/12/2008, final on 09/03/2009

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

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

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

74405/01          Tütüncü and others, judgment of 18/10/2005, final on 18/01/2006

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

26664/05           Uygurer İnşaat San. Tic. Ltd Şti, judgment of 06/10/2009, final on 06/01/2010

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

13721/04           Yıldız Vaide and others, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

39994/04           Yılmaz M., judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 27/01/2010

These cases concern the violation of the applicants' right to a fair trial, and/or 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/or 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, Şahin 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), Kuzu, Tütüncü and others, and Yılmaz M. (39994/04).

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).

34806/03           Talay, arrêt du 22/09/2009, définitif le 22/12/2009

Cette affaire concerne le maintien en détention du requérant pendant huit jours, en dépit de la décision rendue par la cour de sûreté de l’Etat de suspendre l’exécution de la peine du requérant pour raison de santé (violation de l’article 5§1).

La Cour européenne a considérée que les nécessités d’ordre pratique avancées par le gouvernement pour expliquer le retard en question n’étaient pas justifiées en l’espèce d’autant que l’état de santé du requérant avait été jugé incompatible avec le maintien en détention, ce qui appelait une libération immédiate.

L’affaire concerne également l’absence de voie de réparation pour le maintien en détention dans des conditions contraires à l’article 5 (violation de l’article 5§5).

Cette affaire se distingue du groupe d’affaires Değerli et autres (18242/02, rubrique 4.2), dans la mesure où dans ce dernier groupe d’affaires, il s’agit de la prolongation de facto de la détention provisoire des requérants en raison du retard pris par le personnel de l’établissement pénitentiaire dans la mise en œuvre des ordonnances de remise en liberté. Dans la présente affaire, le requérant n’était pas en détention provisoire mais en train de purger sa peine d’emprisonnement et c’est le retard pris par le procureur de la République dans l’examen du dossier du requérant qui a donné lieu à la libération tardive de ce dernier. C’est pour les mêmes raisons que la présente affaire se distingue également de l’affaire Sahin Karatas (16110/03, rubrique 4.2) où le requérant avait été maintenu illégalement en détention du fait d’erreurs dans le calcul des périodes de détention provisoire déjà effectuées.

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.

30326/03           Erkuş, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

The case concerns the unlawful privation of liberty of the applicant, a conscript at the material time, between 22/02/2003 and 11/03/2003 before he was brought before a judge after his arrest on suspicion of being an army deserter (violation of Article 5§1).

In the absence of any concrete information or documentation to the contrary, the European Court did not find it convincing that the authorities in İzmir had needed 12 days to organise the applicant’s transfer back to his army base in Kırklareli or to prevent his escape since he was a suspected deserter. Nor did the European Court consider it necessary to detain him for a total of 17 days before bringing him before a judge (§32).

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

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 Değerliconcerne 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.

                        - 121 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 (violations of Article 6§1), lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13); 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 22 cases the applicants are still detained on remand and in 51 cases the proceedings against them are still pending - see appendix for these cases). In most of these cases (see for example, Yakışan, Yalçın, Ünay, Garip Özdemir, Demir and İpek, Kürüm, Abdulkerim Kaya, İsmail and Şeyhmus Kınay 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.  

• The information provided by the authorities on 11/05/2010 is currently being assessed by the Secretariat.

            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.

- 19 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, définitif le 13/01/2010

29799/02           Bölükbaş et autres, arrêt du 09/02/2010, définitif le 09/05/2010

32697/02          Bozak, arrêt du 20/10/2009, définitif le 20/01/2010, et of 14/09/2010, éventuellement définitif le 14/12/2010

24620/04           Çetiner et Yücetürk, arrêt du 22/09/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010

305/03              Cin et autres, arrêt du 10/11/2009, définitif le 10/02/2010, rectifié le 21/04/2010

17203/03          Devecioğlu, arrêt du 13/11/2008, définitif le 04/05/2009 et du 24/11/2009, définitif le 24/02/2010

9580/03            Gümrükçüler et autres, arrêt du 26/01/2010, définitif le 26/04/2010

343/04              Hacısalihoğlu, arrêt du 02/06/2009, définitif le 02/09/2009

21313/05           Kaya Serpil et autres, arrêt du 12/01/2010, définitif le 12/04/2010

20868/04           Kök et autres, arrêt du 24/11/2009, définitif le 24/02/2010

35785/03          Köktepe, arrêt du 22/07/2008, définitif le 26/01/2009 et du 13/10/2009, définitif le 13/01/2010

33675/04           Ocak, arrêt du 19/01/2010, définitif le 19/04/2010

42082/02           Öztok, arrêt du 08/12/2009, définitif le 08/03/2010

21516/04           Pak, arrêt du 26/01/2010, définitif le 26/04/2010

18257/04          Rimer et autres, arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009, et du 20/05/2010, définitif le 20/08/2010

36192/03          Şatır, arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009, et du 20/05/2010, définitif le 20/08/2010

10250/02           Taş Ali, arrêt du 22/09/2009, définitif le 22/12/2009

45651/04          Temel Conta Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009, et du 14/09/2010, éventuellement définitif le 14/12/2010

16009/04          Vural Nural, arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009 et du 20/05/2010, 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 : Dans certaines de ces affaires, la Cour européenne a réservé l'application de l'article 41 de la Convention et n’a pas encore rendu d’arrêt sur la satisfaction équitable (Bölükbaş, Gümrükçüler, Ocak). Dans les autres affaires, la Cour a soit accordé une satisfaction équitable pour le dommage matériel ou moral dans l’arrêt principal (Cin et autres, Hacısalihoğlu, Kök et autres, Köktepe, Öztok, Pak, Ali Taş), soit rendu des arrêts séparés sur l’application de l’article 41 (Turgut et autres, Bozak, Devecioğlu, Rimer, Satır, Temel Conta, et Nural Vural). Dans les affaires Çetiner et Yücetürk et Serpil Kaya, la Cour n’a pas octroyé de satisfaction équitable en l’absence de demande de la part des requérants dans les délais impartis.

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, rubrique 4.2) 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.

                        - 3 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

31206/02          Fokas, arrêt du 29/09/2009, définitif le 29/12/2009

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 les affaires Nacaryan et Deryan et Fokas 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 deux affaires affaires.

3) Affaire Fokas : La Cour européenne a réservé l’application de l’article 41.

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).

- 5 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

37646/03 +        Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfi n° 2, arrêt du 06/10/2009, définitif le 06/01/2010, réctifié le 02/10/2009

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 les arrêts de la Cour européenne seront devenu définitifs. 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 cujus ou 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.

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).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

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.

33663/02           Mörel, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007[102]

40998/98           Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, judgment of 13/12/2007, final on 13/03/2008

The case concerns the seizure in October 1991 of a ship flying the Cypriot flag as well as its cargo on suspicion of arms smuggling. The ship was chartered by the applicant, an Iranian shipping company.

The European Court noted that in December 1991, following an investigation into the matter, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that in fact the cargo transported by the applicant belonged to Iran and that its seizure could not be justified by national security concerns. The Court therefore considered that it had been unjustified to impound the vessel until December 1992, when ship and cargo were restored. It also took the view that the refusal of national courts to compensate the applicant company for the damage sustained imposed a disproportionate burden upon it (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The vessel and its cargo were released and the European Court noted that the applicant received pecuniary damages in subsequent arbitration proceedings (§ 115 of the judgment).

• Assessment: under these circumstances, no further individual measure seems required.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged by the authorities, in particular the publication and dissemination of the judgment to judicial authorities.

3197/05            Özerman et autres, arrêt du 20/10/2009, définitif le 20/01/2010

La présente affaire concerne essentiellement une violation du droit au respect des biens des requérants en raison de l’absence d’indemnisation pour le transfert de leur bien au Trésor public et à la municipalité d’Antalya (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

En 1955, le bien litigieux avait été inscrit sur le registre foncier au nom de M.Ö, dont les requérant sont les héritiers. En février 2002, à la suite d’un recours introduit par la Direction générale des forêts parmi d’autres, le tribunal cadastral, considérant qu’une partie du bien litigieux relevait du domaine forestier, a annulé le titre de propriété des requérants sur cette partie et a décidé son enregistrement au nom du Trésor public comme domaine forestier.

Entretemps, en avril 1995, alors que cette procédure était pendante devant le tribunal cadastral, la municipalité d’Antalya a engagé une action contre plusieurs personnes, dont les requérants, en demandant l’expropriation des biens et leur inscription sur le registre foncier à son nom. Par un jugement devenu définitif en janvier 2000, cette demande a été partiellement accueillie par le tribunal de grande instance, mais considérant qu’une autre procédure au sujet des titres de propriété était pendante devant le tribunal cadastral, il n’a pas fixé d’indemnité d’expropriation et n’a ordonné aucun paiement à la municipalité.

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 et du 15/06/2010, définitif le 15/09/2010

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 : Dans son arrêt du 15/06/2010 sur la satisfaction équitable, la Cour européenne a dit l'Etat défendeur devait procéder à la réinscription du bien litigieux au nom du requérant dans le registre foncier dans les trois mois à compter du jour où le présent arrêt sera devenu définitif. Elle a en outre indemnisé le préjudice moral subi par la requérante.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la réinscription du bien litigieux au nom du requérant.

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.

39515/03           Okçu, judgment of 21/07/2009, final on 21/10/2009, rectified on 24/08/2009[103]

4889/05+          Karataş and Yıldız and others, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

The case (ten applications) concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings which had variously lasted between 15 and 17 years because first-instance judgments were not notified to the Treasury (for failure to pay costs) for 11 to 13 years before the appellate stage and thus could not become final (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court observed that it is not clear from the case file whether, and if so when and by which party, the fees for service were paid following the delivery of the first-instance judgments. It is also unclear whether the Treasury, being a state enterprise and thus exempt in principle from all fees and charges, was also exempt from the payment of fees for service in the present cases. The European Court pointed out that in five of the applications (Nos. 42996/06, 43031/06, 43019/06, 43038/06 and 43054/06), although the first-instance judgments of 20/12/1990 were served on the applicants on 3/08/1992, they were not served on the Treasury until 6/05/2002, some eleven years later. This indicates that at least the applicants’ share of the fees for service in those cases was paid in due time and that, despite that payment, a lengthy delay in service on the Treasury had still taken place. The European Court stated that, even assuming that the Treasury was not exempt from the fees, it cannot be expected of the applicants that they take additional steps, such as the payment of the fees for service on behalf of the Treasury, in an attempt to make the judgments final, as this would have imposed an excessive burden on them.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

                        - 177 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 and Zeytinli cases also concerns a breach of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their properties (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, Demirtürk 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).

In particular, in the Daneshpayeh case the Court, pointing out that the violation of Article 13 had occurred because there was no national court before which the applicant could complain about the length of judicial proceedings, held that the most appropriate means of putting an end to the violation found would be to bring the domestic law into line with Article 13 of the Convention. It also referred to its case-law and drew the government's attention to the relevant texts adopted by the Committee of Ministers (Res(2004)3 and Rec(2004)6), in particular regarding judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem and regarding the improvement of domestic remedies.

Individual measures: It is observed that in eight 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 fifteen 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 and Seval Tekstil cases.

• 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 ten 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, Daneshpayeh §51).

• 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, in particular considering the Court's findings under Article 46 of the Convention in the Daneshpayeh judgment (§51).

- 163 cases against Ukraine / 163 affaires contre l’Ukraine

53896/07           Okhrimenko, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicant when detained on remand in that he was constantly handcuffed to his bed for security reasons during in-patient treatment for a number of diseases in a civil hospital (violation of Article 3)

The European Court noted in particular that although the applicant had refused examination and treatment and sworn at the hospital personnel, there was no indication that he had ever behaved violently or attempted to escape. Furthermore, he was constantly guarded by three SIZO (remand centre) officers. Moreover, when taken to the hospital the applicant had been suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and after undergoing surgery and subsequent radiotherapy was in a weak condition. The Court therefore considered that the restraint of the applicant by handcuffs could not be justified by security reasons, given his poor state of health.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

72286/01           Melnik, judgment of 28/03/2006, final on 28/06/2006

The case concerns poor conditions under which the applicant was detained following conviction, between September 2000 and March 2006, in three different prisons in Ukraine (Vinnytsia Prison No.1, Arbuzynsk Penitentiary No. 316/83, Snigurivska Penitentiary No. 5).

The European Court found, in particular, that overcrowding, unsatisfactory conditions of hygiene and sanitation and lack of ventilation in these establishments, as well as the authorities’ failure to diagnose and treat in due time the applicant’s tuberculosis, taken together with the duration of the applicant’s detention, amounted to degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

The Court also found that the government had not shown that it was possible under Ukrainian law for the applicant to complain of the conditions of his detention or that the remedies available to him were effective, i.e. that they could have prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or that they could have afforded the applicant appropriate redress (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. According to the authorities (letter of 23/03/2007), the applicant has served his sentence and was released on 28/09/2005.

• Assessment: No further measures seem to be necessary.

General measures: 

            1) Poor conditions of detention in prisons:

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (letters of 23/03/2007 and 27/07/2007):

            A. Improvement of material conditions of detention:

- Overcrowding and the size of cells: The Ukrainian Code on Execution of Sentences (Article 115) provides for a norm of living space of not less than 3 m² per prisoner. The Court (see §51) and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (CPT) (see, inter alia, CPT/Inf(2007)22 dated 20/06/2007) have repeatedly criticised this norm as inadequate. It also follows from the Court judgments that even existing norms are not always respected.

On 16/02/2010 the Law of Ukraine “on amendment to the Code on Execution of Sentences” entered into force setting a norm of at least 4m² per prisoner since January 2012. In August 2006, in order to bring detention conditions in line with European standards, the government approved the State Programme for 2006-2010 on improvement of detention conditions of convicted and detained persons (“the Programme for 2006-2010”). In the framework of this programme, a number of construction works and repairs have been completed or under way to improve prisons and SIZOs and related buildings, including medical units and sanitary zones.

- Lack of proper nutrition, ventilation, daily walks and adequate conditions of sanitation and hygiene: in its judgment (see §107) the Court noted that although the applicant was allowed outdoor activity for one hour a day at Vinnytsia Prison No.1, the rest of the time he was confined to his cell, with very limited space for himself. The Court further criticised the fact, given the acutely overcrowded accommodation, that the applicant had only once-weekly access to a shower and that his linen and clothes could be washed only once a week. Similar criticism was raised by the CPT as well (see report of 20/06/2007).

On 11/10/2006, Order No. 193 approving a regulation on provision of laundry and bath service to prisoners and detainees was adopted by the State Department of Execution of Sentences. According to this regulation, prisoners and detainees shall have access to a bath not less than once a week with obligatory change of linen and clothing. More frequent hygienic bathing may be allowed by the head of the institution following a physician’s findings. For personal hygienic needs prisoners and detainees shall shower not less than twice a week.

- Lack of proper medical assistance to prisoners suffering from tuberculosis and other serious diseases:

On 08/02/2007, Parliament adopted a law approving the State Programme for 2007-2011 on the fight against tuberculosis. The State Programme provides inter alia for the improvement of medical conditions in penitentiary institutions, including the material conditions and staff policy.

       B. Development of alternatives to imprisonment: On 7/08/2008 the Law of Ukraine on amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the humanisation of criminal responsibility entered into force. The law introduces a more differentiated approach to sentencing. It provides the decriminalisation of certain offences and replaces certain custodial sentences with alternative measures.

            2) Effective remedies against poor conditions of detention: The Court found that a complaint lodged with the public prosecutor responsible for supervising the general lawfulness of the enforcement of judgments in criminal cases was not an effective and accessible remedy. In particular, the status of such a prosecutor under domestic law, his proximity to the prison officials whose establishments the prosecutor supervises on a daily basis and consequent integration into that prison system, do not offer adequate safeguards to ensure conduct of an independent and impartial review of complaints on poor conditions of detention. The Court further noted that the government has not shown how a complaint to the courts or other state authorities, including the prosecutor, could offer preventive or compensatory redress, given the accepted economic difficulties of the prison administration (see §69).

            3) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.minjust.gov.ua). It was published in the official government publication, Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy), 10/2006, no.41. A summary of the judgment in Ukrainian was also published in the Government's Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), 07/2006, No.28.

The Department for Execution of Sentences and its territorial divisions has been informed in writing about the judgments. To prevent further violations, the Department initiated a study of the Convention and the Court’s case-law during professional training for personnel of the State Service for Execution of Sentences.

• Assessment: It follows from the Court’s judgments and the CPT reports that problems arising from the conditions of detention in Ukraine are of a structural nature and require comprehensive measures.

An action plan/action report should be provided for the evaluation by the Committee. It should contain the time-table, further details of the measures envisaged or taken and an evaluation of how these measures address the violations found by the Court.

Clarification is expecte of the following:

-           the scope and results of implementation of the Programme for 2006-2010, including statistics on the impact of these measures on the problems at issue, and in particular on improvements made in the prisons named above;

-           the current rules governing medical treatment of prisoners, including those suffering from tuberculosis. Information is also awaited on record- keeping concerning detainees’ state of health and the treatment provided;

-           the scope and results, including relevant statistics, of implementation of the State Programme for 2007-2011 on the fight against tuberculosis;

-           current standards of nutrition, ventilation, daily exercise and sanitation and hygiene in prisons;

-           the impact of the law on humanisation of criminal responsibility on the problems at issue;

-           measures taken or envisaged to introduce an effective, Convention-compatible domestic remedy in respect of detainees’ complaints of poor detention conditions.

While preparing the action plan/action report, the authorities are invited to take into account Committee of Ministers’ Recommendations R(99)22 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation and Rec(2006)2 on the European Prison Rules as well as to the relevant recommendations of the CPT.

- 8 cases mainly concerning the inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted in police custody and / or the absence of an effective remedy

38722/02           Afanasyev, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 05/07/2005

12174/03           Drozd, judgment of 30/07/2009, final on 30/10/2009

17323/04          Ismailov, judgment of 27/11/2008, final on 27/02/2009

16437/04           Kobets, judgment of 14/02/2008, final on 14/05/2008

75520/01           Kozinets, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008, rectified on 27/02/2008

34331/03           Spinov, judgment of 27/11/2008, final on 06/07/2009

39188/04           Suptel, judgment of 19/02/2009, final on 19/05/2009

19312/06           Vergelskyy, judgment of 12/03/2009, final on 12/06/2009

The cases of Afanasyev, Ismailov, Suptel and Vergelskyy concern ill-treatment of the applicants in 1999‑2004 while in police custody with a view to extracting confessions that they had committed criminal offences (substantive violations of Article 3).

All cases, with the exception of Suptel and Afanasyev, concern the failure to conduct effective investigation of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by police officers (procedural violations of Article 3).

In the Afanasyev case, the European Court found that there was no effective remedy available in respect of the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment, as there had been no effective investigation and any claim for compensation would have been futile without criminal proceedings to establish the facts and identify the perpetrators (violation of Article 13).

The Suptel and Vergelskyy cases further concern excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicants and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 6§1 and 13).

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

            1) Afanasyev case: The investigation of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment is still pending. On several occasions the criminal proceedings against the police officers identified by the applicant were discontinued and the crime was re-qualified. As a result, the case was several times remitted from the police to the prosecutor’s office and back. On 31/05/2008 the authorities informed the Committee that the investigator and the prosecutor responsible for the delay in the investigation had been reprimanded.

On 29/04/2009 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Committee of the lack of progress in the investigation.

• Information is still awaited of the progress of the investigation of the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police.

2) Kobets and Vergelskyy cases: When the Court delivered its judgments, investigations of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, as well as criminal proceedings against the applicant in Vergelsky case, were pending.

• Information is awaited on the progress and outcome, if any, of the investigations. Information is further awaited as to measures taken to bring to an end the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Vergelskyy case.

3) Ismailov, Drozd, Kozinets, and Spinov cases:When the Court delivered its judgments, the investigation of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment had been closed for various reasons.

• Information is awaited the measures taken or planned following the findings of the Court, in particular on possible reopening of the investigation into the applicants’ allegations.

4) Suptel case:

• Information is awaited as to whether any action has been taken following the judgments of the Court, with respect to the applicants' allegations of torture.

General measures: It would appear that since the events described in the judgments, the Ukrainian authorities have adopted a number of measures to prevent new, similar violations.

1) Measures adopted:

(a) Legislative measures: On 12/01/2005, a number of amendments were introduced to the Law on the Militia (police). The amended Article 5 of the Law provides, inter alia, that the police:

-       ensure that those apprehended or arrested enjoy the right to defend themselves or to have  legal aid from the very outset of being deprived of their liberty;

-       shall immediately – and not later than two hours after apprehension or arrest – inform detainees’ relatives. The detainee’s defence counsel and employer shall also be informed if the detainee so requests;

-       take measures to provide apprehended or arrested persons with urgent medical and other assistance, if need be; 

Police officers are prohibited from demanding any explanations or testimony from apprehended or arrested persons if they request their defence counsel to be present.

Apprehended or arrested persons shall be informed without delay of their rights provided by law, including their right to defend themselves with the assistance of a lawyer from the moment of their apprehension or arrest, and their right to refuse to give any explanation or evidence before arrival of the lawyer.

Finally, Article 5 introduces the right to compensation in case of breach by police officers of the guarantees mentioned.

(b) Professional and in-service training of police officers: Measures have been taken to strengthen human rights training by including the study of the Convention’s requirements and the case-law on Article 3 in the curriculum of educational establishments under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and that of the National Academy of Prosecutors. 

Problems of ill-treatment were also discussed during training programmes for judges and law-enforcement bodies organised by the Office of the Government Agent and NGOs.

            2) Outstanding issues: The constantly growing number of similar applications pending before the European Court and the CPT visits to Ukraine demonstrate that in spite of the measures taken by the authorities, the infliction of deliberate physical ill-treatment of detainees by police officers on duty, remains widespread in Ukraine. Eradicating this practice requires comprehensive measures at all levels.

• A comprehensive action plan/action report therefore is awaited. Such an action plan/action report should contain the time-table, further details of the measures envisaged or taken to combat abuses in police custody and the evaluation of how these measures address the violations found by the Court. Such an action plan shall inter alia address the following issues:

-       the existence of the regulatory rules aimed at ensuring effective compliance by police with the procedural safeguards provided by law, in particular the existence of appropriate instructions regulating in details the apprehension procedure, custody records, medical examinations of apprehended persons etc; 

-       the existence of appropriate procedures to tackle police misconduct or complaints mechanisms; 

-       measures to ensure effective investigations of allegations of ill-treatment and punishment for abuses, including the relevant statistics on the number of complaints of police ill-treatment and the results of investigations (number of cases resulting in criminal proceedings against police officers; number of cases brought to court, number of convictions);

-       the existence of appropriate legal framework for punishment of abuses committed by police officers

-       the scope and results of implementation, including relevant statistics, of compensation clause of Article 5 of the Law on the Militia;

-       measures taken to develop modern methods of police investigation. 

When elaborating the action plan the authorities might consider recommendations of the CPT in this field.

3) Excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedy in this respect: See Merit case (66561/01, Section 4.2)

4) Publication and dissemination: All judgments, with the exception of Ismailov and Suptel, have been translated into Ukrainian and published in the official government publication, the Official Herald of Ukraine. The Afanasyev, Kozinets and Kobets judgments may also be found on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.minjust.gov.ua). 

The translated judgments were sent out with explanatory notes to the relevant authorities: the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the State Tax Administration and their territorial divisions.

The Afanasyev judgment of the European Court was translated into Ukrainian and published in a specialised quarterly journal, Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Judgments. Comments, together with comments of the Government Agent relating to its interpretation and application in legal proceedings. The journal is distributed to all courts and other relevant authorities.

• Information is awaited on translation, publication and dissemination of the Ismailov and Suptel judgments.

                       - 6 cases mainly concerning poor conditions of pre-trial detention (SIZO)

54825/00           Nevmerzhitsky, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005

72277/01           Dvoynykh, judgment of 12/10/2006, final on 12/02/2007

28827/02           Isayev, judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 28/08/2009

65550/01           Koval, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 12/02/2007

75522/01           Mikhaniv, judgment of 06/11/2008, final on 6/04/2009

30628/02           Ukhan, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 18/03/2009

The cases concern inhuman or degrading treatment inflicted on the applicants while detained on remand during various periods between 1997 and 2005, particularly in the Kyiv Region Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit (SIZO No. 1), the Simferopol SIZO, the Zhytomyr SIZO, the Security Service Investigative Isolation Unit, SIZO No.13, SIZO No.30, SIZO No.27, and the Stryzhavska Prison No. 81.

The violations resulted from unacceptable detention conditions including: overcrowding and inadequate size of cells; inadequate medical care; an insanitary environment and failure to respect basic hygiene; absence of ventilation, daily outdoor walks, and access to natural light and air.

The Nevmerzhitsy case also concerns the force-feeding of the applicant while on hunger strike, involving the use of handcuffs, a mouth-widener and a special rubber tube inserted into the oesophagus (violations of Article 3).

The cases (except the cases of Nevmerzhitsky, Isayev and Mikhaniv) also concern the lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law in respect of the applicants’ complaints concerning the detention conditions (violations of Article 13).

The Nevmerzhitsky, Isayev and Mikhaniv cases also concern unlawful and/or lengthy pre-trial detention (violations of Article 5§§1 and 3).

The Isayev and Mikhaniv cases further concern excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

The Nevmerzhitsky case finally concerns the authorities’ failure to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts, by failing to comment on particular questions, or failing to provide relevant documents and medical reports (violation of Article 38§1(a)).

Individual Measures: The applicants were released from pre-trial detention in the cases of Nevmerzhitsky, Dvoynykh, Ukhan and Mikhaniv. In the Koval and Isayev cases the applicants were convicted and transferred to serve their sentence to penitentiary establishments. The European court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

• Information is awaited on the state of criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Mikhaniv case and on the measures taken by the authorities in this respect following the Court’s judgment.

General Measures:

            1) Poor conditions of pre-trial detention and the lack of effective remedies in this respect:

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities:

          A. Improvement of material conditions of detention:

- Overcrowding and the size of cells:The Pre-trial Detention Act (Article 11) sets the norm of living space per detainee: not less than 2,5 m². The Court noted that the established domestic standards were far below recommendatory standards established by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (CPT).

In August 2006, in order to bring detention conditions in line with European standards, the government approved the State Programme for 2006-2010 on improvement of detention conditions of convicted and detained persons (“the Programme for 2006-2010”). In the framework of this programme, a number of construction works and repairs have been completed or under way to improve prisons and SIZOs and related buildings, including medical units and sanitary zones.

- Sanitation/hygiene in detention units:On 11/10/2006, Order No. 193 approving a regulation on provision of laundry and bath service to prisoners and detainees was adopted by the State Department of Execution of Sentences. According to this regulation, prisoners and detainees shall have access to a bath not less than once a week with obligatory change of linen and clothing. More frequent hygienic bathing may be allowed by the head of the institution following a physician’s findings. For personal hygienic needs prisoners and detainees shall shower not less than twice a week.

- Force-feeding: It is noted that the European Court qualified as “torture” the procedure prescribed in the Decree of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of 4/03/1992 No. 122, concerning specifically the issue of force-feeding of detained persons who go on hunger strike.

In 2006, the Ukrainian authorities informed the Committee of draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Execution and other legislative acts to set a unified forced-feeding procedure for all detainees, that could be applied only following a court decision. The draft law was to be submitted to for the government’s approval by the end of November 2006.

• No information is available on the developments in this respect.

          B. Developments of alternatives to detention: On 7/08/2008 the Law of Ukraine on amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the humanisation of criminal responsibility entered into force. The law introduces a more differentiated approach to sentencing and a broader range of non-custodial measures. It further replaces certain custodial sentences with alternative measures.

            2) Failure to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court: Given the particular importance of the principle embodied in Article 38§1a, the authorities' attention must be drawn to the Committee's Resolution ResDH(2001)66 stressing that the principle of co-operation with the Court embodied in the Convention is of fundamental importance for the proper and effective functioning of the Convention system and calling upon the governments of the contracting states to ensure that all relevant authorities comply strictly with this obligation.

The authorities’ attention was also drawn to the Memorandum on the failure to co-operate with the organs of the Convention (Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Convention) prepared by the Secretariat for the 960th meeting (CM/Inf/DH(2006)20).

            3) Unlawful and/or lengthy pre-trial detention: See the Doronin group of cases (16505/02, Section 4.2)

            4) Excessive length of criminal proceedings: See Merit group of cases (66561/01, Section 4.2).

• Assessment: It follows from the Court’s judgments and the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (CPT) (see, inter alia, CPT/Inf(2007)22 dated 20/06/2007) that problems arising from the conditions of detention in Ukraine are of a structural nature and require comprehensive measures.

An action plan/action report should be provided for the evaluation by the Committee. It should contain the time-table, further details of the measures envisaged or taken and an evaluation of how these measures address the violations found by the Court.

Clarification is also expected on the following:

-           the scope and results of implementation of the Programme for 2006-2010, including statistics on the impact of these measures on the problems at issue, and in particular on improvements made in the detention centres named above;

-           the current rules on medical treatment and assistance to persons in pre-trial detention centres;

-           further measures to improve material conditions of detention in pre-trial detention facilities;

-           further measures to ensure wider recourse to measures alternative to detention. More detailed information is expected on the law on the humanisation of criminal responsibility and its impact on the problems at issue; statistics concerning the application by domestic courts of alternative measures are also awaited;

-           the details and progress in adoption of amendments to the relevant legislation to ensure a Convention- compatible procedure for force-feeding detainees; information is also expected on whether the impugned provisions of the Decree of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of 4/03/1992 No. 122 are still in force;

-           measures taken or envisaged to introduce an effective domestic remedy in respect of detainees’ complaints of poor detention conditions;

-           legislative or other measures envisaged to ensure that state authorities fully co-operate with the European Court in the process of establishing the facts of the cases brought before it;

-           publication and wide dissemination of the judgments, together with the Resolutions mentioned above to all relevant authorities, such as courts, prosecutors and penitentiary authorities;

While preparing the action plan/action report, the authorities are invited to take into account the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendations Rec(2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse, R(99)22 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation and Rec(2006)2 on the European Prison Rules as well as to the relevant recommendations of the CPT. The authorities’ attention is also drawn to the Conclusions adopted at the Round Table “Detention on remand: general measures to comply with the European Court’s judgments” held on 9-10/12/2009 in Warsaw.

- 2 cases mainly concerning poor conditions of pre-trial detention in a Temporary Detention Centre (ITT)

15825/06          Yakovenko, judgment of 25/10/2007, final on 25/01/2008

43707/07           Koktysh, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

Both cases concern the poor conditions of detention in the Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre (ITT) in 2003-2007, amounting to degrading treatment, due in particular to poor material conditions (both cases) and to the authorities’ failure to provide timely and appropriate assistance to the applicant for his HIV and tuberculosis (Yakovenko).

The Kokhysh case also concerns poor material conditions of detention in the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO)as from July 2007.

Both cases further concern unacceptable transportation conditions, both by road and rail between the ITT and the SIZO and the lack of any effective or accessible remedy in respect of complaints about the conditions of detention (violations of Article 3 and 13 of the Convention).

The Koktych case further concerns violations of the applicants' rights in respect of his detention pending extradition due to deficiencies in domestic legislation governing extradition proceedings (violations of Article 5§§1,4 and 5). In addition, the Court ruled that the applicant's extradition to Belarus would be in violation of Article 3.

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

            1) Yakovenko case: 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.

            2) Koktysh case: when the Court delivered its judgment, the applicant was detained in the SIZO.

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (letter of 29/10/2010):On 2/02/2010, following an order of the Office of the Prosecutor General, the applicant was released from pre-trial detention. On 12/03/2010 the District Administrative Court of the ARC quashed the decision of the State Committee on nationalities and religions by which the applicant had been refused refugee status.

• Information is awaited, in view of the Court's finding under Article 3 of the Convention, as to whether the applicant has been granted refugee status and whether the extradition proceedings against him have been closed.

General measures:

1) Poor conditions of detention in Temporary Detention Centres:

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 in Yakovenko case that the problem 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.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to avoid similar violations in future.

            2) Improper 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) Poor conditions of detention in Pre-Trial Detention Centres: See the Nevmerzhitsky group of cases (54825/00, Section 4.2).

4) Lack of an effective remedy:

• Information is awaited on the measures taken/planned to ensure availability of an effective remedy for complains against poor conditions of detention in Temporary Detention Centres.

5) Problems related to detention pending extradition: See the Soldatenko group of cases (2440/07, 1108th meeting, March 2011).

6) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the Court in Yakovenko case 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 Government Agent drew attention of the Ministry of Interior and the State Department on Execution of Sentences 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.

• Information is awaited on publication and dissemination of Koktysh judgment.

- 8 cases mainly concerning unlawful and/or lengthy detention on remand

16505/02           Doronin, judgment of 19/02/2009, final on 19/05/2009

17650/02           Gavazhuk, judgment of 18/02/2010, final on 18/05/2010

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 (violation of Article 5§1);

-      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 (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) (violation 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 (violation 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 (violation of Article 5§3);

-      the lack of effective judicial remedies to obtain prompt examination of the lawfulness of the detention on remand, both at pre-trial and at trial stages (violation of Article 5§4);

Yeloyev case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None of the applicants is being held on remand. They have either been released or sentenced. In all cases, with the exception of Yeloyev, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

No sum was awarded in Yeloyev case as the applicant submitted no claim under this head.

The criminal proceedings in Yeloyev case had been completed when the Court delivered its judgment.

• Assessment: No further measures seem to be necessary.

General measures:

               1) Problems related to detention on remand:

(a) Legislative amendments: in June 2001 and in April 2003, in the course of the so-called “small judicial reform”, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (“the CCP”) were amended with respect to:

      - 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, 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 with the case-file, not later than a month before the expiry of the term of pre-trial detention. If the materials are made available beyond the one-month time-limit, the accused shall be immediately released from detention once the statutory period for his detention expires. In this case he will still be entitled to study the case file. If the deadline for making the case-file available is 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 (Article 156).

During the Round Table “Detention on remand: general measures to comply with the European Court’s judgments” organised by the Department for Execution of Judgments of the European Court on 9-10/12/ 2009 in Warsaw, the Ukrainian authorities informed the participants of an ongoing reform of criminal justice in Ukraine, in particular on the new draft Code of Criminal Procedure to be elaborated. According to the authorities, it is expected that the new Code would resolve the problems underlined by the Court and would bring the detention pending investigation and trial in line with Convention requirements.

(b) Other measures: In its Resolution of 25/04/2003 (amended in 2008), the Plenary of the Supreme Court drew the attention of all courts inter alia 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.

• A comprehensive action plan/action report should be provided to the Committee.It should contain the time-table, further details of the measures envisaged or taken and an evaluation of how these measures address the violations found by the Court, including:

 - detailed information on the provisions of the draft CCP addressing each particular problem found by the Court;

- measures to ensure that the guidelines of the Supreme Court are duly put into practice;

- statistics concerning the application of different preventive measures;

- information on publication and dissemination of the judgments, possibly together with an explanatory note, to all relevant authorities.

While preparing the action plan/action report, the authorities are invited to take into account the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendations Rec(2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse. The authorities’ attention is also drawn to the Conclusions adopted at the Round Table “Detention on remand: general measures to comply with the European Court’s judgments” held on 9-10/12/2009 in Warsaw. 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 authorities may also wish to use the experience of 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) Excessive length of criminal proceedings:See Merit group of cases (66561/01, Section 4.2).

2295/06            Chaykovskiy, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of individual petition to the European Court due the retention by prison authorities of an enclosure to a letter sent by the European Court to the applicant (violation of Article 34).

The Court noted in particular that such interference ran counter to the express wording of Article 113 of the Code on Enforcement of Sentences, further elaborated in Order No. 13 of the State Department for Execution of Sentences of 25/01/2006, according to which the correspondence of detainees with the Court had a privileged status.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

11932/02           Mikhaylyuk and Petrov, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns the unlawful interception of the applicants’ correspondence by a prison administration (violation of Article 8).

At the time of the event, the second applicant worked for the prison and had his permanent place or residence registered there. Subsequently, the applicants lived together in the first applicant’s flat.

As regards legal provisions cited by the Ukrainian authorities, the European Court noted that they were applicable only to persons held in pre-trial detention or serving sentences in prison. However, the applicants did not fall into those categories. As regards the instructions on dealing with correspondence by the Ministry of Interior and the State Department of Execution of Sentences, the Court noted that those instructions were internal and unpublished. The Court accordingly found that the interference with the applicants' correspondence had no basis in law.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

            - 2 cases mainly concerning the monitoring of prisoners' correspondence

1291/03            Volosyuk Sergey, judgment of 12/03/2009, final on 12/06/2009

13693/05           Glinov, judgment of 19/11/2009, final on 19/02/2010

Both cases concern unlawful interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence while in detention on remand (violations of Article 8).

In particular, the case of Sergey Volosyuk concerns monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with various state officials and state bodies in 1999 – 2004. The European Court found in this respect that at the material time national law did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the discretion conferred on public authorities regarding the monitoring of detainees’ correspondence.

It further concerns disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence because of his placement, for ten days, in a disciplinary cell as a punishment for sending a letter bypassing the control of prison staff. The Court also observed in this respect that the applicant had no remedy whereby he might effectively challenge this disciplinary measure. 

The Glinov case concerns monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court both before and after 1/12/2005, when the legal framework regulating control of detainees' correspondence was changed. Having found the monitoring before 1/12/2005 to be unlawful for the reasons set out in the Volosyuk case, the European Court found that the monitoring after this date was contrary to the law, given the explicit prohibition it provided of any monitoring of correspondence with the Court.

The Sergey Volosyuk case further concerns lengthy detention of the applicant on remand and the lack of effective judicial remedies to obtain prompt examination of the lawfulness of the detention, both at pre-trial and at trial stages (violations of Article 5§§ 3 and 4).

Finally, it concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicants are no longer detained on remand. In the Sergey Volosyuk case, the Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. In the Glinov case, the Court found that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: No further measure seems necessary.

General measures:

1) Unlawful monitoring of detainees’ correspondence:

(a) Legal framework for the monitoring: the Court found that the legislative provisions on monitoring of detainees’ correspondence did not draw sufficient distinctions between the various categories of persons with whom detainees might correspond.

Moreover, as the monitoring was automatic, the authorities were not obliged to give a reasoned decision specifying the grounds on which correspondence was monitored. Likewise, the law did not specify whether the detainee was entitled to be informed of any alterations of the contents of his or her outgoing correspondence. Nor did it provide for a specific remedy enabling the detainee to contest the manner or scope of the application of the screening measures provided for by the law (see §85 of the Sergey Volosyuk judgment).

• Information is awaited on the measures taken or planned to bring the legal framework governing monitoring of detainees’ correspondence into compliance with the requirements of the Convention. Information is awaited in this context on measures taken to ensure proportionality of punishment of detainees found to violate the detention regime and the availability of a remedy to challenge such punishment.

(b) Correspondence with the Court: It follows from the Court’s conclusions that the violation arises from the authorities’ failure to comply with national law which, since December 2005, has prohibited the monitoring of detainees’ correspondence with the Court.

• Information is awaited on the measures taken or planned following the Court’s judgment.

2) Lengthy detention on remand and lack of prompt judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention: See the Doronin group of cases (16505/02, Section 4.2);

3) Length of criminal proceedings: See the Merit group of cases (66561/01, Section 4.2).

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.

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.

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

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).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

1751/03            Matsyuk, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to domestic courts’ inconsistent interpretation of the procedural legislation, which deprived the applicant of the possibility to challenge in clear and practical manner the administrative authorities’ refusal to pay compensation in connection with certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant claimed compensation from the tax police for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of unjustified criminal proceedings brought against him.

By a letter of 23/11/2001 the tax police informed the applicant that his claim had been rejected and explained their reasoning for that decision. After their failure to respond to his renewed claim, the applicant applied for compensation to a court, but was informed that he must first appeal against the refusal of the tax police to award it. After he had fulfilled that requirement, three levels of jurisdiction dismissed his complaint without consideration on the ground that the police decision at issue had not been issued as a resolution but stated in a simple letter.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

17551/02           Kolesnik, judgment of 19/11/2009, final on 19/02/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial, in that his conviction for murder was based first on self-incriminating statements obtained at pre-trial stage in the absence of legal assistance and allegedly against the applicant's will and secondly on statements of key witnesses for the prosecution whom the applicant was not able to confront during the trial (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3 (c)).

The European Court found that despite the acknowledgement by the domestic courts of the violation of the applicant’s right to defence, his self-incriminating statements had served as a key element in his conviction. It further concluded that the domestic authorities had not taken sufficient steps to ensure the presence of key witnesses before the court to verify their pre-trial testimony.

Individual measures: The applicant is currently detained. The European Court noted that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It further noted that where an applicant has been convicted in proceedings judged to be unfair as in this case, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested,would constitute in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation found.

Ukrainian law provides that court proceedings may be reopened if the European Court has found a violation of the Convention.

• Information is still awaited in this respect.

General measures:

• An action plan/ action report is still awaited on the measures taken or planned to tackle the problems revealed by the Court.

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.

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.

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.

20437/05           Shagin, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the lack of a public hearing in criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 6§1).

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were opened on the suspicion that a network of private commercial enterprises, “Top-Service”, directed by the applicant, had organised an armed group with conspiracy to kill state officials and businessmen who were allegedly obstructing its business. In a ruling of 23/05/2003, the Kyiv Court of Appeal advanced two reasons for excluding the public from the hearings: the privacy of the witnesses and victims and the security of participants in the trial. The only explanation given as to what had given rise to those concerns was a reference to the presence of an unidentified individual in the public gallery, who was allegedly armed and who had allegedly been making an audio recording of the hearings on the applicant's instruction and in disregard of the judges' remarks.

The European Court considered that it was not apparent why the presence of one individual called for the exclusion of all the public: any security issues raised by the individual could have been resolved by less far-reaching measures, such as removing him from the court-room. The trial court's other comments, a reference to the need to avoid disclosure of the statements of witnesses and victims and a general reference to the security of participants, were not put in context or otherwise explained by the authorities. The Court consequently found that no reasons had been given which could justify the exclusion of the public from the entirety of the first-instance proceedings.

In addition, the Court did not consider that the public examination of the case by the Supreme Court remedied the lack of a public hearing before the trial court. Thus, in practice its review was incomparably more limited than that of the first-instance trial, as there was no re-hearing or examination of witnesses and only one hearing was held at that stage of the proceedings.

The case also concerns a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence due to statements made by a public official at the very initial phase of the criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§2).

In the European Court's view, the wording chosen indicated that the official concerned considered it to be an established fact that the applicant had been ordering and paying for murders, while the only issue about which he was less confident was the exact amount paid for the killings. Accordingly, this statement, which had been made long before the applicant's indictment, amounted to a declaration of his guilt which, first, encouraged the public to believe him to be guilty and, secondly, prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

- 2 cases mainly concerning the right to freedom of movement (measures taken to ensure that the applicants would not abscond during the proceedings)

15007/02           Ivanov, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 07/03/2007

14613/03           Nikiforenko, judgment of 18/02/2010, final on 18/05/2010

Both cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1) and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Article 13).

They also concern violations of the applicants’ right to freedom of movement in that, during the proceedings each of the applicants was subject to an obligation not to abscond for a period of more than ten years (violations of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

The European Court found that the mere duration of the obligation not to abscond could be sufficient to conclude that it was disproportionate. The Court further put emphasis on the fact that this lengthy interference occurred in the context of prosecuting a moderately serious offence in the Ivanov case and a fairly trivial one in the Nikiforenko case, and that the charges against the applicant in the former case were already time-barred in September 2000, whereas the restriction was imposed on him until May 2006. The Court therefore concluded that a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the applicants’ rights was not achieved.

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

1) Ivanov case:

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (31/10/2007): The applicant’s obligation not to abscond was cancelled in May 2006 and the criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed. On 22/05/2007 the Panel of Judges in Criminal Cases dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal, so that the judgment became final.

2) Nikiforenko case: The applicant’s obligation not to abscond was cancelled and the proceedings against the applicant were closed when the Court delivered its judgment.

• Assessment: No further measures seem to be necessary.

General measures:

1) Length of criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect: See Merit group of cases (66561/01, Section 4.2).

2) Lengthy restriction on freedom of movement as a result of the undertaking not to abscond:

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities on 11/04/2008: The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (Articles 148, 165 and 165-1), that was also in force at the material time, 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.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to ensure that this legislative provision is respected in practice. Information also awaited on the measures taken/planned to ensure that application of the restriction on freedom of movement would correlate with the seriousness of the offence.  

3) Translation, publication and dissemination of the judgment: Both judgments have been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official website. They were published in the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 23 of 10/04/2007 (Ivanov) and No. 59 of 13/08/10 (Nikiforenko). A summary of the Court's judgment in Ivanov case 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 drawing their attention to the findings of the European Court in Ivanov case and inviting them to take account of them in their daily practice in order to prevent new, similar violations.

The Supreme Court, in its turn, 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.

- 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

The cases concern violations of the applicants' right to a hearing by a “tribunal established by law” in that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction when deciding on the applicants’ commercial claims (violations of Article 6§1).

In 2004 in the case of Sokurenko and Strygun and in 2002 in the Veritas case, the Supreme Court, acting as a second cassation court, quashed the decisions by the Higher Commercial Court and upheld those delivered by the Court of Appeal.

The European Court found in this respect that the Supreme Court’s competence under the Code of Commercial Procedure to review the decisions of the Higher Commercial Court was limited, as it could only quash the resolution of the Higher Commercial Court, remit the case for fresh consideration or nullify the proceedings. Instead, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, without giving any reasons for exceeding its jurisdiction, when no such course of action was provided in the Code of Commercial Procedure. The Court further noted, with reference to the government, that taking such type of decisions in commercial proceedings had become a usual practice for the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

Individual measures:

            1) Sokurenko and Strygun case: The European Court awarded both applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

Ukrainian law provides the applicants with the right to request re-opening of proceedings following the judgment of the European Court. According to the Ukrainian authorities, the applicants have not lodged such a request within the time-limits provided by the legislation.

            2) Veritas case: The applicant company submitted no claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court made no award.

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicant company has requested re-opening of the proceedings following the European Court’s judgment.

General measures:

            1) Legislative changes: On 7/07/2010 the Law of Ukraine “on the judicial system and the status of judges” was adopted by Parliament. The new law, inter alia, introduced amendments to the Code of Commercial Procedure according to which the Higher Commercial Court has become the sole cassation-instance court in commercial cases (Article 108). The competence of the Supreme Court in adjudicating commercial cases has been limited exclusively to the extraordinary review of the decisions of the Higher Commercial Court.

            2) Publication, dissemination and training: The judgments were translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official website (www.minjust.gov.ua) They were published in the official government’s print outlet Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 1 of 19/01/2007 (Sokurenko and Strygun) and No. 27 of 21/04/2009 (Veritas). A summary of Sokurenko and Strygun judgment was also published in the Government's Currier No. 6 of 13/01/2007.

By letter of 28/12/2006, the authorities drew the attention of the Supreme Court to the Court's conclusions in this case. The Government Agent has further drawn attention to the problem raised by the judgments during a number of seminars and trainings for judges.

• Information is awaited on any other possible measures taken or planned to ensure that courts when adjudicating cases comply with their jurisdiction set by the law.

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. The judgment was also sent by the State Court Administration to all domestic courts.

17707/02          Melnychenko, judgment of 19/10/2004, final on 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 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.

803/02              Intersplav, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 23/05/2007

The case concerns the violation of the applicant company's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions due to systematic delays, from 1998 onwards, in payment of VAT refunds. The Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration failed to confirm the amounts involved and to issue certificates for VAT refunds in due time. In addition, compensation for delayed refund of VAT was denied to the applicant company in more than 140 sets of proceedings brought before the Lugansk Commercial Court (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court found that the tax administration’s practice of groundlessly refusing to confirm the applicant’s entitlement to VAT refunds constituted a violation of the applicant company's right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. This practice forced the applicant continually to seek judicial review of its claims to validate the company’s eligibility for a refund, as well as compensation for the delayed refund of VAT.

The European Court further noted that in the circumstances of the present case the most appropriate form of redress would in principle be the elimination of this administrative practice found contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Individual and general measures:

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (27/09/2007): The new rules for VAT refund became effective on 01/06/2005. According to the authorities, the new rules abolished automatic refunding on the basis of the tax return and introduced an obligation on the tax authorities to check the correctness of amounts claimed. As the new refund procedure has not been subjected to the European Court's review, the authorities do not consider it necessary to take further measures in the case.

• Applicant's submissions: The applicant company provided the Secretariat with numerous submissions claiming a number of individual and general measures to be adopted by the authorities.

• This information is being assessed by the Secretariat.

- 93 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: Since 2005 the Committee has been regularly informed by the Ukrainian authorities on the preparation of the draft law 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) which would, inter alia, set up a domestic remedy with respect to complaints against length of civil proceedings.

No progress has been achieved in its adoption.

• Information is still awaited is this respect. 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 the possibility to accelerate proceedings would be appreciated.

            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.

                       - 23 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

36024/03          Nichitaylov, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

26277/02          Nosalskiy, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 12/10/2007

21231/04          Polishchuk, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

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

2035/03            Telegina, judgment of 19/11/2009, final on 10/05/2010

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: In all cases, with the exception of the cases of Nichitaylov, Safyannikova, Solaz, Telegina, and Yefanov and others, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. In the cases of Safyannikova, Telegina, and Yefanov and others, the Court found that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants. In Nichitaylov and Telegina, the applicants submitted no claim for pecuniary damages. At the time of delivery of the respective judgments the criminal proceedings in the cases below were pending:

            1) Merit: at the time of delivery of the Court’s judgment, the investigation against the applicant was suspended as his co-accused in the criminal case could not be found. The applicant was under undertaking to appear before the investigating authorities and the court. It would appear from the Court judgment that the excessive length of the criminal proceedings was caused by the investigative authorities’ inactivity for a certain period and by they failure to effectively exercise their power under the domestic law, in particular to disjoin the proceedings against the applicant and his co-accused that would allow the authorities to proceed with the investigation against the applicant.

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (letters of 11/05/2010 and of 4/10/2010):

From 28/06/2004 to 27/02/2006 the proceedings in the applicant’s case were resumed in order to perform certain investigative actions and then on several further occasions they were suspended again. In particular, following the Court’s findings, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were disjoined from those against his co-accused. On 17/09/2004 the district court ordered the applicant to be apprehended and conveyed to the court with the view to deciding on application of a preventive measure.

Since 27/02/2006 the criminal investigation against the applicant has been suspended because of the applicant’s failure to appear before the investigative authority.

On 17/03/2010, under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959 the Office of the Prosecutor General requested the Directorate of Judges and the Ministry of Justice of State of Israel to confirm the applicant’s dual citizenship and his residence on the territory of Israel.

On 3/09/2010, since no reply had been provided, the GPO requested the Israeli authorities to accelerate consideration of the request.

According to the authorities, it is entirely imputable to the applicant that the criminal proceedings cannot be pursued as the applicant’s repeated failure to appear, despite his undertaking to the contrary, makes it impossible to complete the investigation in accordance with domestic procedural rules. The authorities note that Ukrainian law does not allow criminal proceedings to be conducted in the applicant's absence and that no international instruments exist between Ukraine and Israel that would make it possible to prosecute the applicant in Israel. 

• The applicant’s position: Since the delivery of the judgment by the Court, the applicant has been complaining (most recently on 16/08/2010)about the Ukrainian authorities’ failure to comply with the judgment and to bring the criminal proceedings against him to an end. He alleges that the criminal proceedings against him are groundless. He further states that he is unable to claim compensation for the property and documents seized during the prosecution, in 1997, as according to domestic legislation this can be done only after the criminal proceedings have been terminated.

The applicant states in particular that since 2004 the authorities have been aware of his whereabouts. In July 2009, he once again communicated his address to the authorities together with a proposal for closure of the criminal proceedings against him and for a friendly settlement regarding restitution of his property seized by the authorities and subsequently sold at public auction.  

The applicant further contested the existence of the mentioned assistance request to the Israeli authorities, having referred in particular to the reply, in Hebrew, allegedly given by the MFA of Israel on his inquiry about the request of the Ukrainian authorities.  

Information provided is being assessed.

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, Chervonets and Nichitaylov and bring them to an end. In 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;

-           the courts' failure to take the appropriate measures to ensure the presence of the applicant, the victim and the witnesses;

-           the numerous transfers of cases between various trial courts and remittals for additional investigations, expert assessments and re-trials;

-           frequent transfers of cases to new investigators who had to acquaint themselves with the files;

-           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).

• 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.

            2) Lack of an effective domestic remedy: Since 2005 the Committee has been regularly informed by the Ukrainian authorities on the preparation of the draft law 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) which would, inter alia, set up a domestic remedy with respect to complaints against length of criminal proceedings.

No progress has been achieved in its adoption.

• Information is still awaited is this respect. 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 the possibility to accelerate proceedings would be appreciated.

3) Failure to enforce domestic courts' decisions: See Zhovner group of cases (56848/00, Section 4.3).

4) Publication of judgments: All judgments have been translated into Ukrainian published in official publications. The Merit judgment has also been published in specialised law publications, namely Legal Bulletin of Ukraine (No.24, June 2004), Bulletin of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (No. 7, 2004), Law of Ukraine and the Legal Newspaper (No. 9, May 2004).

Most of the judgments may be found on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.minjust.gov.ua).

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.

22603/02          Ukraine-Tyumen, judgment of 22/11/2007, final on 22/02/2008 and of 20/05/2010, final on 04/10/2010

This case concerns the quashing of a final judgment by way of supervisory review (protest).

In August 1996 a state enterprise, one of the co-founders of the applicant company, transferred title of a building in Kyiv to the applicant company as its share in its statutory capital. On 29/12/1998, following a claim by the local authorities against the state enterprise, the domestic court declared that the state enterprise did not have the power to transfer the building and ordered it to give it back to the City Administration. On 11/03/1999, this decision was quashed and the claim of the local authorities was rejected. That decision was, however, quashed on supervisory review in February 2001.

The European Court found that the supervisory review of final and binding judgments, which was not directly accessible to parties, nor subject to any time-limit, nor justified by substantial and compelling circumstances, was not compatible with the principle of legal certainty which a fundamental aspect of the rule of law (violation of Article 6§1).

The case further concerns disproportionate interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions in that it could not seek any form of compensation in respect of the loss of the building at issue. 

The European Court noted in this respect that the applicant company had acquired the building without knowing that the state enterprise had no power to transfer it, and thus had a legitimate expectation to use the building as part of its commercial operations. Consequently, the quashing of the transfer of the building had deprived the applicant company of part of its assets (violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1).

Individual measures: the Court awarded no just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage as the applicant company's claim under this head had been unspecified. It further reserved the issue of pecuniary damage.

On 20/05/2010, the Court delivered the judgment on just satisfaction. The Court awarded pecuniary damage, which amounted to the market value of the building at issue, and costs and expenses to be paid to the applicant company. This judgment became final on 4/10/2010.

• Information is awaited on the payment of just satisfaction and other possible measures to ensure to the applicant restitutio in integrum.

General measures:

1) Quashing of final judgments via supervisory review: This issue has been considered by the Committee in the context of Sovtransavto group of cases (48553/99, Section 4.3). At their 1028th meeting in June 2008, the Deputies, considering that the supervisory review procedure had been abolished in Ukraine, decided to close the examination of this issue.

• Assessment: No further measures therefore seem to be necessary.

2) Expropriation of property without compensation:

• Information is awaited on the measures taken/planned to prevent similar violations in the future.

 

- 12 cases against the United Kingdom / 12 affaires contre le Royaume-Uni

                       - 6 cases concerning the action of the security forces in the United Kingdom[104]

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

3455/05 A and others, judgment of 19/02/2009 - Grand Chamber

This case concerns the applicants' certification by the UK authorities as “suspected international terrorists” their detention, and subsequent legal challenges to their certification and detention (violation of Articles 5§1, 5§4 and 5§5).

Background: On 18/12/01 the United Kingdom lodged a derogation pursuant to Article 15 of the European Convention with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in respect of Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (the 2001 Act). The derogation was made on the basis that there was a public emergency in the United Kingdom and stated that the provisions in Part 4 of the 2001 Act may be inconsistent with Article 5§1. In 2001 the applicants were certified by the United Kingdom authorities under Part 4 of the 2001 Act as “suspected international terrorists” and consequently detained. They challenged their certification and detention in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and on appeal to the House of Lords.  

Derogation from Article 5§1 under Article 15 of the European Convention: The European Court first considered the validity of the United Kingdom's derogation from Article 5§1, under Article 15 of the European Convention. The Court concluded that the derogation was valid, as at the time there was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (§181).

Violation of Article 5§1: The Court then went on to consider whether the measures made pursuant to that derogation (i.e. Part 4 of the 2001 Act) derogated “only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation” (§182). The Court found that the measures under which the applicants were detained were “disproportionate in that they discriminated unjustifiably between nationals and non-nationals” (§190).

Violation of Article 5§4: The applicants' certification and detention was considered before the SIAC courts, which use a system of “closed evidence” and “special advocates” to consider evidence related to national security issues (see §§91-93).The European Court found that given the applicants' lengthy and, what appeared at the time, to be indefinite detention, the proceedings before the SIAC needed to include certain guarantees. The Court found that those guarantees were absent in proceedings against four of the applicants where those applicants were unable to respond to allegations against them: such allegations being general assertions or contained entirely in closed evidence unavailable to the applicants or their counsel.

Violation of Article 5§5: Lastly, the European Court stated that the violations found could not give rise to an enforceable claim for compensation before national courts.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage to all eleven applicants, save the second and fourth.

Part 4 of the 2001 Act was repealed in 2005. The applicants are no longer detained (see also General Measures below).

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary. 

General measures:

1) Derogation under Article 15 of the European Convention: The United Kingdom authorities withdrew the notice of derogation on 16/03/05.

2) Violation of Article 5§1: Part 4 of the 2001 Act was repealed and replaced with a regime of control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act), which came into force on 11/03/2005. The control order regime under the 2005 Act operates regardless of nationality (§83).

Sections 1-9 of the 2005 Act which set out the powers relating to the control order regime, remain in force up to one year at a time and are then subject to renewal by Parliament. On 01/03/2010 and 03/03/2010 the House of Commons and the House of Lords voted to renew the powers under the 2005 Act for a further year, from 11/03/2010 – 10/03/2011.

• Assessment: no further general measures appear necessary in respect of this violation.

3) Violation of Article 5§4: The SIAC was set up by the Special Appeals Commission Act 1997. Although Part 4 of the 2001 Act has been repealed, the SIAC continues to deal with cases where the Secretary of State for the Home Department seeks for example to deport individuals from the United Kingdom on national security or other public interest grounds under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

i) Control Orders The control order regime which relates to persons reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism related activity under the 2005 Act also involves the use of “closed material” and the presence of “special advocates”. The procedures under the 2005 Act were modelled on the SIAC procedures but exist under separate legislation.

Judgment of the House of Lords: On 10/06/2009, sitting exceptionally as a nine-judge panel, the House of Lords gave judgment in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF and another (Appellant) [2009] UKHL 28. The judgment considered the impact of the European Court’s finding of a violation of Article 5§4 on the control order regime set out under the 2005 Act. Noting that the legal framework engaged in this case was different from that before them, the Lords stated that “the clear terms of the judgment in A and others v United Kingdom resolve the issue raised in these appeals” (§64).

They went on to state that “…the essence of the Grand Chamber’s decision lies in paragraph 220 and, in particular, in the last sentence of that paragraph. This establishes that the controlee must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions in relation those allegations. Provided that this requirement is satisfied there can be a fair trial …” (§59). The Lords did not make a Declaration of Incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of the 2005 Act but stated: “If the Government adjudges that it is necessary to impose serious restrictions upon an individual’s liberty without giving that individual a fair opportunity to challenge the reasons for doing so … then the Government will have to consider whether or not to derogate from Article 6 of the European Convention. Until that time, judges will have to grapple with precisely how much disclosure is necessary to enable the controlled person to mount an effective challenge and the Secretary of State will have to grapple with whether to agree to it. The principles are clear, although by no means easy to apply in particular cases…” (§106).

• Information provided by the United Kingdom authorities (09/03/2010): In control order cases where it appears that there needs to be disclosure of a greater degree of information in order to meet the safeguards identified in the judgment, the question of how much information to disclose is decided in the context of litigation before the domestic courts. The UK authorities present the government’s arguments and special advocates make submissions in the interests of the individual “controlee”. The court then comes to a conclusion on what level of disclosure is appropriate. If the court rules that more information should be disclosed, so that the “controlee” may know the gist of the case against him then the government may either disclose the information or withdraw it from the case. If the government withdraws the information, it can no longer rely on that aspect of the case (which may result in the control order having to be withdrawn).

Since this process has been applied, some control orders have been withdrawn completely and 2 have been replaced with new control orders with less restrictive provisions called “light touch” control orders. The domestic courts have ruled that AF applies to these “light touch” control orders (R (on the application of SSHD) v BC and BB [2009] EWHC 2927 Admin (11 November 2009)) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2927.html)

Joint Committee on Human Rights: In a number of reports (most recently its 16th report Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation (25/03/2010)) the Joint Committee assessed this aspect of the Control Orders legislation and concluded that “the current regime is not capable of ensuring the substantial measure of procedural justice that is required. In short, it cannot be operated fairly without fundamental reforms which have so far been resisted”.

In gathering evidence for its reports the Joint Committee heard from the Special Advocates themselves who made serious criticisms of the system and the possibility for them to advocate successfully for disclosure on behalf of the “controlees” stating that “there are serious limitations on their ability to do this effectively” (§60). The Joint Committee concludes that “the impact of the decision on improving fairness in practice may have been limited by the Government’s passive and minimalist approach to compliance … We recommend that the Government conduct a more thoroughgoing and proactive review of the material on which it relies  ... rather than leaving that task to the special advocates in ongoing proceedings” (§53).

Review of counter-terrorism and security powers : On 13/07/2010, the United Kingdom government publicly announced to Parliament that they would be conducting a review of counter-terrorism and security powers which would include a review of control orders (see Hansard 13/07/2010: Column 797). The findings of this review will be reported to Parliament in autumn. On 06/07/2010, the Prime Minister also announced that a Green Paper on the use of intelligence in judicial proceedings would be published next year. This will consider more broadly how intelligence is handled in civil court contexts, including where executive action, such as the making of a control order, is taken.  It has been noted by the UK authorities (on 30/09/2010) that the JCHR’s work will be taken into account in the counter-terrorism and security review and the forthcoming Green Paper.

• Information is awaited on the progress and conclusions of the review and Green Paper recently announced by the United Kingdom authorities.

            4) Violation of Article 5§5: The violation of Article 5§5 follows the European Court’s finding that the violations found could not give rise to an enforceable claim for compensation before the national courts.

• Information provided by the United Kingdom authorities (28/09/2009): the legal regime which led to this violation (Part 4 of the 2001 Act) is no longer in force.

• Assessment: No further measures appear necessary in respect of this violation.

5) Publication: the judgment was reported in The Times Law Reports on 20/02/2009 and the All England Law Reports at [2009] All ER (D) (203). It was also widely reported on in the British media.

30562/04+         S. and Marper, judgment of 04/12/2008 – Grand Chamber

DD(2009)619E; DD(2010)119E; DD(2010)327E

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 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).

A more detailed summary of the European Court’s reasoning is set out in the notes for the 1078th (DH) meeting (March 2010).

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 NDA 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).

The main outstanding matters are set out below (for more detail on the examination of this issue see the public notes for the 1078th meeting, March 2010).

1) Legislative proposals made by the United Kingdom authorities under the previous government: Bilateral consultations were established between the United Kingdom authorities and the Secretariat to review the legislative proposals made by the United Kingdom authorities under the previous government, following relevant decisions of the Committee of Ministers:

- the previous government’s submissions as to how the revised legislative framework executed the Court’s judgment are contained in DD(2009)619E and DD(2010)119E.

- a preliminary and further assessment of the revised powers of retention, presented at the March DH meeting, is contained in DD(2010)119E and DD(2010)327E .

            2) Current position of the United Kingdom authorities: The issue of DNA and fingerprint retention is being actively considered by the new coalition government. In its Programme for Government of 20/05/2010 the Coalition stated that “We will adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database”. A more detailed proposal, including whether to bring into force any aspects of the Crime and Security Act (the legislation adopted by the previous government but not yet in force) as an interim measure is being considered. It is anticipated that the coalition government will submit legislation to Parliament on DNA retention (based on the Scottish model) in Autumn 2010, anticipating that it will be brought into force by Autumn 2011.

3) Submissions from civil society: A number of submissions have been made by NGOs and human rights institutions under Rule 9. 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, at DD(2009)274E (28/04/2009 - GeneWatch, Action on Rights for Children, Liberty, Privacy International and No2ID), DD(2009)457 (01/09/2009 - EHRC), DD(2009)437 (26/08/2009 - NIHRC), DD(2009)441E (28/08/2009 - GeneWatch, Action on Rights for Children, Liberty, Black Mental Health UK, Privacy International and No2ID), DD(2009)614E (17/11/2009 - EHRC).

4) Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR): For more detail on the JCHR’s comments on the legislative proposals of the previous government, see the public notes of the 1092nd meeting, June 2010. In the Ministry of Justice document ‘Responding to human rights judgments, which is the Government’s response to the JCHR’s Fifteenth Report of Session 2009-2010’ in July 2010 (http://www.justice.gov.uk/responding-human-rights-judgements-2009-2010.pdf), the new coalition Government acknowledged that “the six-year retention period proposed in the Crime and Security Act 2010 is excessive and such an extended period of DNA retention for those who have never been convicted is unacceptable” and that “[l]egislation is to be brought forward as soon as possible to adopt the essential protections of the Scottish model, which was noted with approval by the Court in reaching its judgment in the S and Marper case” (page 11).

5) Case-Law developments:  After the European Court decided contrary to the HoL in S and Marper, the issue was recently considered by the High Court in R (c) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis.  The court held that it could not apply the ECtHR judgment due to the common law doctrine of precedent (§44) and therefore followed the old HoL ruling. The case, however, has been leapfrogged straight to the Supreme Court on appeal which will have the opportunity to apply the judgment in S and Marper.

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.

• Assessment: In relation to the Scottish model the European Court noted that “this position is notably consistent with the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation R(92)1” (§110). Adoption of the Scottish legislative model for England, Wales and Northern Ireland therefore appears welcome. However, information is awaited on the detail of the new legislation and any interim measures envisaged. Given that the legislation criticised by the Court at the time of the judgment remains in force and the size of the database and number of individuals possibly affected, information on the implementation of interim measures is of particular importance in relation to both the current situation and the treatment of “legacy profiles”.

It is acknowledged that the R (C) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis case has been leapfrogged to the Supreme Court on appeal and further comment on the significance of this case and its effect on proposed reform will be made pending the delivery of the judgment.

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. As a result, both prisoners and young offenders can now make arrangements for the confidential handling of their medical correspondence concerning a life threatening condition.

2) Scotland: In June 2010, the Scottish Prison Service introduced a revised policy regarding the monitoring of prisoners’ medical correspondence (Governor and Management Action Notes 28A/10 and 34A/10). This was clarified in a further notice to prison governors in July 2010. In the long-term, however, the prison rules in Scotland have not been amended as there is a wider review of the Rules underway due to changes in healthcare provision. It is anticipated the new Rules will be published in October 2011.

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. The Northern Ireland authorities have stated intent to amend their rules but have not set a date as yet.

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.

• Assessment: Information is awaited on the content and the detailed time-frame of the necessary amendments in Scotland; and on the content and time-frame of necessary amendments in Northern Ireland.

66746/01          Connors, judgment of 27/05/2004, final on 27/08/2004

The case concerns a breach of the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life and his home on account of the eviction of the applicant and his family from a local authority gypsy caravan site in August 2000 (violation of Article 8).

Under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, a person who occupies a mobile home as his only or main residence on a ‘protected site’ may not be evicted except by court order. The court may only grant such an order if it (a) is satisfied that the occupier has breached a term of the agreement and has failed to remedy the breach with a reasonable period, and (b) considers it reasonable for the agreement to be terminated. This protection is conferred to occupiers of mobile homes on privately owned residential sites and local authority sites. However section 5(1) expressly excludes from the definition of ‘protected sites’ land occupied by a local authority as a caravan site for gypsies.

The European Court found that “the power to evict without the burden of giving reasons liable to be examined as to their merits by an independent tribunal has not been convincingly shown to respond to any specific goal” (§94). It concluded that the eviction of the applicant and his family was not attended by the requisite procedural safeguards, in that there was no requirement for the local authority to establish proper justification for the serious interference with the applicant's rights. The eviction therefore could not be regarded as justified by a “pressing social need” or proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of being denied the opportunity to obtain a ruling on the merits of his claim that the eviction was unreasonable or unjustified.

• Assessment: under the circumstances, no further additional measure appears necessary.

General measures: General measures are only needed for the situation in England and Wales.

            1) Legislation: The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 received Royal Assent on 22/07/2008. Section 318 of the 2008 Act provides an amendment to the definition of “protected site” in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, extending the provisions and protections in the 1983 Act to local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites. Section 318 of the 2008 Act will be brought into force via secondary legislation: with respect to England such an order will be made by the Secretary of State, while in Wales a separate order will need to be made by the Welsh Ministers. 

On 25/09/2008 the United Kingdom authorities published a consultation paper, Implementing the Mobile Homes Act 1983 on local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites. The consultation paper relates to proposals for consequential amendments to the 1983 Act in respect of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites, and transitional provisions. The consultation was completed on 19/12/2008.

• Information provided by the UK authorities on 30/09/2010: A summary of the responses to this consultation was published on the Communities and Local Government website on 12/10/2010.

The statutory instruments which will bring the amendments into force are to be laid before Parliament by the end of October 2010.

            2) Interim guidance: On 16/07/2009, following a consultation period which closed on 22/08/2007, the government published Gypsy and Traveller Site Management: Good Practice Guide.  The guidance recommends that until the 1983 Act is implemented with respect to local authority sites, authorities may wish to include terms in licences providing additional protection from eviction or use of internal appeals procedures.

            3) Other relevant measures: In addition to these measures, the United Kingdom authorities drew attention first, to the Housing Act 2004, which allows judges to suspend eviction orders against residents of local authority sites on certain terms (for example on condition that there is no further anti-social behaviour). Second, they indicated that the nature of judicial review has changed since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. In R (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Hospital RMO [2002] 1 WLR 419, the Court of Appeal held that there should be cross-examination of witnesses to determine the factual matters at issue and that, on this basis, the judicial review procedure would be compatible with Article 6 of the Convention.

            4) Publication: The judgment of the European Court was published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2005) 40 EHRR 9.

• Assessment:  It does not appear that the statutory instruments bringing the legislation in line with the Convention were laid before Parliament by mid-October.

• Information is therefore awaited on these amendments. 

19009/04           McCann, judgment of 13/05/2008, final on 13/08/2008

This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home following his eviction in 2005 pursuant to the service of a common law “notice to quit” signed by his wife (violation of Article 8).

In 2002 the applicant’s estranged wife signed a notice to quit in respect of a property owned by the local authority, of which she and the applicant had been joint tenants, in order to formalise her decision to terminate the tenancy. Although the applicant’s wife was unaware of it, under the common law a notice to quit, signed by either tenant, has the effect of extinguishing any other tenants’ right to live in the property and gives the landlord a right to immediate possession.

On 09/12/2003 the Court of Appeal, applying the House of Lord’s judgment in LondonBorough of Harrow v. Qazi ([2003] UKHL 43), held that Article 8 of the Convention was not available to the applicant as a defence to the possession proceedings. Judicial review proceedings brought by the applicant failed, as the court considered that the local authority had acted lawfully. The applicant was evicted on 22/03/2005.

The European Court found that although the applicant had been residing in the property unlawfully, following the service of the notice to quit, it was his home under Article 8§1 of the Convention. It considered that the notice to quit and the possession proceedings were both in accordance with the law and pursued a legitimate aim. The Court concluded however that “the applicant was dispossessed of his home without any possibility to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal”, and that this lack of adequate procedural safeguards resulted in a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (§55).

Individual measures: The applicant was awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The United Kingdom authorities consider that no individual measures are necessary in light of the Court finding an Article 8 violation in its procedural aspect only, and its observation that “it is far from clear whether a domestic tribunal in a position to assess the proportionality of the eviction would not still have granted the order” (§59).

• Assessment:  The Article 8 violation in this case arose from the inability of a domestic tribunal to assess the applicant’s eviction in light of the principle of proportionality. To achieve restitutio in integrum, it follows that the applicant should be able to have an assessment of his eviction by an independent tribunal able to consider the proportionality of the measure; this is an obligation of means, not of result. If it is not possible to have such a reassessment before an independent tribunal, the authorities should propose an alternative measure – for example, the offer of alternative accommodation – to rectify the consequences of the violation.

General measures:

1) Developments in domestic case-law: On 03/11/2010, the Supreme Court in Pinnock v Manchester City Council considered the issue and held unequivocally that the question of whether a local authority’s decision to repossess a home is proportional within the meaning of Article 8 must be considered by a court. This is a direct application of the judgment in this case and clarifies the position in domestic law.

The Supreme Court further stated, at §63 of its judgment, that “the conclusion that the court must have the ability to assess the article 8 proportionality of making a possession order in respect of a person’s home may require certain statutory and procedural provisions to be revisited.

For example, section 89 of the 1980 Act limits the period for which a possession order can be postponed to 14 days, or, in cases of ‘exceptional hardship’, 42 days. And some of the provisions of CPR 55, which appear to mandate a summary procedure in some types of possession claim, may present difficulties in relation to cases where article 8 claims are raised.”

            2) Joint Committee on Human Rights: The United Kingdom parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has previously expressed concern that “the issue of respect for people’s homes in summary possession cases remains unresolved, despite numerous decisions of the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights” (Fifteenth Report of Session 2009-10, 26 March 2010, §71).

3) Communications under Rule 9: The Committee of Ministers received a Rule 9 communication from the Housing Law Practitioners’ Association on 27/03/2009, highlighting that only legislative reform can implement the European Court’s judgment. Both the Rule 9 communication (DD(2009)183) and the government’s response (DD(2009)248E) were circulated to the Committee of Ministers. 

4) Publication: The judgment of the European Court was widely published, for example [2008] All ER (D) 146 (May); [2008] Fam. Law 729; Times, 23 May 2008. Furthermore, several articles and case comments have been published with respect to the judgment. Given the substantial commentary on the judgment, the Government does not consider it necessary to disseminate it to local authorities.

• Assessment: There was previously a considerable amount of case-law from the House of Lords (the predecessor body to the Supreme Court) which resulted in some lack of clarity in respect of the relevant national jurisprudence. The Supreme Court in Pinnock has clarified the position in domestic law by applying the judgment in this case and stating that the Article 8 proportionality of a local authority’s decision to repossess a home must be considered by a court. In order to achieve this, the Supreme Court identified in the judgment that “certain statutory and procedural provisions to be revisited” §63.

• Information is therefore awaited on the response of the UK authorities following the Supreme Court’s conclusions in Pinnock.

821/03              Financial Times Ltd and others, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

This case concerns violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression due to a court order in 2001 obliging them to provide documents enabling the identification of, and instigation of proceedings against, an unknown journalistic source (violation of Article 10).

On 27/11/2001 and 28/11/2001 the applicants, four newspapers and a news agency, received a copy of a leaked confidential document from an unknown source, concerning a possible takeover of South African Breweries plc by a competitor, Interbrew, which, it appeared, had a significant impact on the share price of the companies concerned. On 19/12/2001 the High Court, observing that there was a substantial public interest in identifying the source, granted Interbrew a disclosure order requiring the applicants to deliver up documents provided by third parties, or evidencing discussions with any journalistic source, concerning the possible takeover. The applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 08/03/2002. The applicants have refused to comply with the order, which has not been enforced.

The European Court noted that the disclosure order remains capable of being enforced and thus constitutes an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, but that it was lawful and served a legitimate aim. Emphasising the “chilling effect” that “will arise wherever journalists are seen to assist in the investigation of anonymous sources” (§70 of the judgment), the Court found that “Interbrew’s interests in eliminating the threat of future damage and obtaining damages for breaches of confidence were insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the protection of journalists’ sources” (§71 of the judgment).

• Information submitted by the United Kingdom authorities on 09/04/2010 is currently being assessed.