Draft Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

Ministers’ Deputies

Annotated Agenda

CM/Del/OJ/OT(2002)810 (restricted) 3 October 2002

———————————————

810th (DH) Meeting 7 (2.30 p.m.), 8 and 9 October 2002

Draft Annotated Agenda and Order of Business ⁽¹⁾

——————————————

This document only takes into account the information available to the Secretariat on 10 September 2002

________________________

(1) Those items marked with an asterisk * were added after approval of the draft Agenda (Appendix 2 to the Volume of Decisions of the 764th meeting) in accordance with the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. 3

GENERAL QUESTIONS. 9

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS. 10

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES. 15

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION. 35

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTION (INDIVIDUAL MEASURES, MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS) 57

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED.. 92

SECTION 6 - CASES WAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION. 101

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING (819th MEETING, 3-4 December 2002) 110

Additional documents

Addendum General Questions

Addendum 1 - Final Resolutions

Addendum 4 – Cases raising special questions

Addendum Preparation of the next DH meeting (819th meeting, 3-4 December 2002)

INTRODUCTION

At the present Human Rights meeting, the Committee of Ministers, sitting at the level of the Ministers’ Deputies, will supervise the execution of some 1456 cases in accordance with Article 46, § 2, of the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Supervision is carried out in accordance with the Rules for the application of this Article adopted by the Deputies on 11 January 2001[1]. The Directorate General of Human Rights (Department for the execution of the judgments of the Court) and the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers provide advice and assistance to the Deputies in the fulfilment of their functions under the Convention. Information and communications relating to the cases should be addressed to these departments.

Below follows a short comparative survey of the meeting (the information on the nature of the cases in the different sections is described after the table):

	Meetings
Sections	810	803	798	792	783	775	764	760	757	749
General Questions		-	-	-	1689[2]	-	-	-	-	-
1.1	8	0	11	6	3	4	15	4	5	1
1.2	6	11	36	26	1	4	1	3	2	1
1.3	11	4	8	7	8	3	20	1	3	3
1.4	34	25	2	8	7	8	9	3	2	-
2	154	277	142	213	83	115	92	156	104	169
3.1.a	638	568	536[3]	418	388	390	314	-	254	194
3.1.b	89	116	70³	58	54	41	169	-	166	170
3.1.c	39	36	36³	34	36	34	31	-	9	25
3.2	-	1	2	-	-	7	0	-	10	-
4.1	17	15	8	5	13	36	15	-	15	3
4.2	112	91	78	82	65	139	52	22	142	38
4.3	5	71	72	4	4	3	1463	19	19	19
5.1	21	13	12	17	18	17	21	32	29	20
5.2	-	0	0	-	-	0	0	1	1	1
5.3	7	16	3	1	10	7	14	8	7	9
5.4	-	0	0	-	-	0	0	-	-	-
6	318	351	324	317	336	299	173	123	98	83
Total of the cases examined	1456	1595	1340	1196	2725	1107	2373	372	866	719
Total of final resolutions submitted	59	40	57	47	29	19	45	11	12	6
Total of new cases	154	277	142	213	83	115	92	156	104	170
Total of pending cases	3282	3187	2964	2958	2649	2624	2531	2482	2555	2425

SECTION 1 – FINAL RESOLUTIONS

In the cases appearing under this heading the Deputies are invited to adopt draft resolutions putting an end to the supervision of execution carried out pursuant to Article 46§2 of the Convention (or former Articles 32[4] and 54 for cases decided before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).

In these cases the Court (or the Committee) has either found a violation of the Convention or struck the case out of the list on the basis of undertakings made by the parties (for example in the case of friendly settlements – see Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court).

In all the cases, the Deputies have provisionally found, with the assistance of the Directorate General of Human Rights, that the required execution measures have been taken. The relevant information for each case has been summarised in a draft final resolution presented in Addendum 1. To facilitate examination, the cases are grouped as follows:

Sub-section 1.1. - Leading cases

In these leading cases the measures adopted aim at preventing new violations of the Convention (legislative or regulatory measures, changes of case-law, mere publication in those states where the Convention and the Court’s judgments are given direct effect, administrative measures or other measures) and/or at redressing adequately the individual situation of the applicant (among the measures which may be relevant mention may be made of reopening of proceedings, striking out a conviction from criminal records, granting a residence permit, etc.)

Sub-section 1.2 – Cases concerning problems already solved

This sub-section comprises cases which do not raise problems as regards the applicant’s individual situation, but which concern general problems which have already been solved in the context of similar earlier cases.

Sub-section 1.3 – Cases not involving general or individual measures

Contains cases which do not raise problems of a general or individual character. In these cases the mere dissemination of the judgment to the authorities directly concerned is considered sufficient.

Sub-section 1.4 – Friendly settlements and problems of a general character

This new sub-section groups friendly settlements relating to complaints concerning general problems already under examination by the Deputies in the context of other leading cases in which violations have been established.

No discussion of cases in Section 1 is envisaged since the examination of the different execution questions has already been carried out by the Deputies in the course of earlier meetings.

SECTION 2 – NEW CASES

Under this heading, the Deputies are called upon to conduct a first examination of the execution of the new final judgments delivered by the Court (Article 44 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention) finding violations of the Convention. The Deputies also supervise the execution of judgments striking cases out of the Court’s list (friendly settlements, non-pursuit of the application, or a solution to the dispute) and which contain specific undertakings (Article 39 of the Convention and Article 44 of the Rules of Court).

The examination of new cases is in general resumed after the expiry of the 3-month time-limit normally imparted by the Court for the payment of the just satisfaction.

In those cases where all execution measures have already been taken before this first examination, a draft final resolution summarising the relevant information could be submitted for adoption. Such draft resolutions appear in Addendum 2.

Discussion is envisaged mainly for cases which raise questions of individual measures or new general measures.

Dissemination of the judgments to all the authorities involved has been requested in all these cases.

SECTION 3 – JUST SATISFACTION

In these cases the Deputies are called upon to supervise the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and, where required, of any default interest owed.

The section also presents the last cases in which the Deputies, in accordance with former Article 32§2 of the Convention, are called upon to decide on the question of just satisfaction on the basis of proposals submitted by the former European Commission of Human Rights or by the Committee of Special Advisors set up by Resolutions DH(99)681 and (2000)138 (see also decision 692/4.4 from December 1999).

Sub-section 3.1 – control of payment:

3.1.a: Supervision of the payment of the capital sum of the just satisfaction as well as, where due, of default interest, in cases where the deadline for payment expired less than 6 months ago.

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

3.1.b: Supervision of the payment of the capital sum of the just satisfaction in cases where the deadline for payment expired more than 6 months ago.

3.1.c: Examination of special payment problems (for example the disappearance of the applicant, disputes regarding the exact amount paid as a result of exchange rate problems or administrative fees).

The further examination of the cases in sub-sections 3.1 a - c depends on the information received.

Sub-section 3.2 – Decisions on just satisfaction

The Deputies may be are called upon to take a decision on just satisfaction pursuant to former Article 32. The details of the cases are found either in a table presented under this sub-section, or, if the case is complex, in Addendum 3 II.

The examination of such cases will be resumed after the expiry of the 3 months time-limit set for payment.

SECTION 4 – CASES RAISING SPECIAL QUESTIONS

(individual measures, measures not yet defined or special problems)

The cases which appear under this heading require special attention to the extent that they either raise problems regarding the individual situation of the applicant, or concern problems in respect of which the necessary execution measures have not yet been defined, or raise other special problems (for example on account of the magnitude of the problems raised or delays in the adoption of the necessary execution measures).

Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

This sub-section groups together cases in which the Deputies will exclusively examine the measures taken or to be taken in order to put an end to the violation found and/or remedy its consequences as far as the applicant’s individual situation is concerned – where the just satisfaction awarded by the Court has not done so.

Sub-section 4.2 - Individual measures and/or general problems

This heading presents both cases involving payment problems combined with general problems and cases in which measures have not yet been defined. For supervision of individual measures, see sub-section 4.1 above; for supervision of payment, subsection 3.1.c and for general measures, section 5 below.

Sub-section 4.3 – Special problems

This title groups together complex cases raising special problems.

Supplementary information relating to the cases under this heading may, where necessary, be found in Addendum 4.

As long as individual measures are outstanding cases are examined at each Human Rights meeting, unless the Deputies decide otherwise. Examination of other issues is decided upon on a case-by-case basis.

SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

In these cases the Deputies are called upon to supervise the progress made in adopting measures of a general character defined at the national level and to ensure that these measures are apt to prevent new violations similar to those found by the Court. Cases are grouped together according to the nature of the main reforms envisaged.

In complex cases which require the adoption of several kinds of measures, cases are placed in the sub-section which corresponds to the main measures remaining to be adopted. A case may thus, for example, pass from sub-section 5.1 to sub-section 5.4 if the legislative changes required are rapidly adopted, whereas the implementation of the practical measures required turn out to take more time.

Sub-section 5.1 – Legislative and/or regulatory changes

In the cases in this group, the Deputies are mainly waiting for changes of legislation or of government regulations aiming at preventing new similar violations. Delegations of respondent States will thus furnish information about the content of draft legislation or regulations and on the procedure for their adoption.

Sub-section 5.2 – Changes of courts’ case-law or of administrative practice

This heading presents cases in which the Deputies are waiting for evidence (in the form of copies of judgments or decisions, statistics, etc.) of a change of the domestic courts’ case-law or of administrative practice, where such a change cannot, for one reason or another, be presumed solely on the basis of the publication or dissemination of the judgment (cf. the next sub-section).

Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

This title encompasses in particular cases in which a change of court case-law or of administrative practice may be presumed, on the basis of evidence of the direct effect accorded to the Court’s judgments in general, as a result of simply publishing or disseminating the judgment in the case at issue, where necessary in translation into the national language. It may also concern other types of cases presenting a broader interest, such as those which imply important indications regarding the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In all these cases, the Deputies are normally waiting for details regarding the publication or dissemination carried out.

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

Sub-section 5.4 – Other measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL QUESTIONS

a. Adoption of the Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

Action

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

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

Action

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

c. Preparation of the next meeting (819^th ((3-4 December 2002)) see page 110

*d. Application of default interest in the supervision of the execution of the terms of friendly settlements

Addendum General Questions

Action

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this item, in the light of the comments they were invited to transmit to the Secretariat (see Addendum General Questions).

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS

(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

(Addendum 1)

Action

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

SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

- 1 case against Austria

H54-1120 25964 Ahmed, judgment of 17/12/96

- 1 case against France

H54-13 21257 Gautrin & 104 others, judgment of 20/05/98

- 1 case against Germany

H46-1206 37591 Metzger, judgment of 31/05/01, final on 31/08/01

- 1 case against Spain

H46-1358 39293 Fuentes Bobo, judgment of 29/02/00, final on 29/05/00

- 4 cases against Turkey

H54-1379 21380+ Demir, Kaplan, Süsin, judgment of 23/09/98

H32-1380 26148 Dinç - Interim Resolution DH(99)471

H32-1381 28010 Şimşek - Interim Resolution DH(99)561

H54-1382 23878+ Sakık & others, judgment of 26/11/97

SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

- 1 case against France

H32-15 28713+ Juhel & others

- 5 cases against Turkey

H46-1429 39335 Gaganuş & others, judgment of 05/06/01

H46-1432 37040 A.T. & others, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01

H46-1433 26398 Küçük, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-1434 34502 M.T. & others, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01

H46-1435 38379 E.A. & others, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01

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

- 5 cases against France

H32-16 26514 Delbec II

H46-17 33237 Gerber, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-18 33634 J.B., judgment of 26/09/00, final on 22/01/01

H46-19 40868 Parege, judgment of 09/10/01, final on 09/01/02

H32-20 26059+ Potier & Cocquempot

- 2 cases against Germany

H46-21 27937 Bayrak, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-22 42505 Mianowicz, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 27/03/02

- 1 case against Poland

H46-23 27915 Niedbała, judgment of 04/07/00

- 2 cases against Portugal

H46-24 41288 Maillard Bous, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-25 41598 Santos & other, judgment of 14/06/01, final on 14/09/01

- 1 case against Spain

*H46-26 49468 Diaz Aparicio, judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02

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

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

H46-27 37527 Kuchař & Štis, judgment of 18/12/01 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Denmark

H46-1166 44704 Normann, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

- 19 cases against Italy

H46-28 43033 Bianco, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-29 43024 Cardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-30 43035 Ciaramella Antonietta, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-31 43031 D’Addona Antonio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-32 43043 D’Angelo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-33 43037 Febbraro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-34 43025 Fiore, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-35 43028 Lignelli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-36 43039 Lombardi la Francesco, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-37 43038 Mariniello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-38 43029 Palmieri, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-39 43032 Paradiso Grazia Pasqualina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-40 43034 Parrella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-41 43042 Raccio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-42 43040 Ranaldo Vincenzo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-43 43027 Ricci Maria Pasquala, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-44 43036 Santoro Maria Carmina, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-45 43026 Tedesco Antonio A.L., judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-46 43041 Viscusi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-47 37538 Van Nus, judgment of 24/07/01 - Friendly settlement

- 4 cases against Portugal

H46-48 43684 Jesus Mafra, judgment of 27/09/01

H46-49 44296 Barata Dias, judgment of 04/10/01

H46-50 44616 Jàcome Allier, judgment of 04/10/01

H46-1345 45566 Amaral de Sousa, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 8 cases against Turkey

H46-51 33324 Ağgül & others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-52 33323 Aygördü & others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-53 31847 Güven Kemal, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-54 31848 Güven Cemal & Güven Nurhayat, judgment of 22/05/01 –

Friendly settlement

H46-55 33325 İnce & others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1427 26519 Dindaroğlu & others, judgment of 26/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1428 35849 Ertuğrul, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1443 32055 Gawracz, judgment of 12/02/02 – Friendly settlement

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES

Action

The Deputies are invited to procede to the first examination, under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the ECHR, of the following new judgments, delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (for further information, see the text of the judgments, http://www.echr.coe.int) on the assumption that judgments which are not yet final will not be referred to the Grand Chamber.

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases after expiry of the time-limit set for payment or according to the specificity of the cases.

PAYMENT OF JUST SATISFACTION

In all the new cases in which States should pay just satisfaction as ordered by the Court or as agreed in a friendly settlement (see the table in Addendum 2 containing the details of the sums awarded or agreed in each case), the authorities of the respondent State are invited to provide the Secretariat, in writing, with confirmations of payment.

INDIVIDUAL AND/OR GENERAL MEASURES

As regards any other execution measures which may be callad for in the light of the conclusions of the Court, the authorities of the respondent State are invited, on a preliminary basis, to provide the Secretariat, in writing, with information on the measures mentioned after each case. The possible necessity to take other measures than those mentioned could nevertheless be addressed at the meeting.

Dissemination of the judgments to all the authorities involved has been requested in all cases and delegations are invited to provide the written confirmation of this dissemination.

In all these cases, just satisfaction or compensation agreed under a friendly settlement has been awarded to the applicants except in the following cases: Lallement (H46-73 reserved in part), Yagtzilar & others (H46-98, reserved), Adamogiannis (H46-106), Vasilopoulou (H46-101 reserved), Tsirikakis (H46-102 reserved), Albergamo (H46-120), Rizzo (H46-126), Troiani Marcello (H46-131), Fernandes João (H46-169).

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

The cases for which the final character of the judgment has not yet been confirmed by the Court appear in grey background.

Section 2

- 7 cases against Austria

H46-56 29271 Dichand & others, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-58 28525 Unabhangige Initiative Informationsvielfalt, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression of the applicants, on account of civil-law injunctions issued in 1994 under Section 1330 of the Civil Code prohibiting them from re-publishing certain allegations, qualified as incorrect statements of fact. In both cases, the Court found, contrary to the view of the Austrian courts, that the impugned statements were to be regarded as value judgments, that they had not been excessive and that account should have been taken of the fact that they concerned issues of general interest (violations of Article 10).

These cases present similarities to that of Jerusalem, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01, currently under Section 6 of this annotated agenda and order of business. During the examination of the Jerusalem judgment, the Austrian authorities indicated that the Supreme Court has now aligned its interpretation of the domestic law on the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court, particularly as regards the distinction between factual statements and value judgments (cf. judgment of the Supreme Court of July 5, 2001, 6 Ob 149/01 g).

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgements.

H46-57 34315 Krone Verlag Gmbh & Co. Kg., judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

(No debate envisaged)

This case concern a disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant publishing company, on account of an injunction under civil law (Section 78 of the Copyright Act), in 1996, prohibiting it from publishing a picture of a member of parliament in connection with certain statements, irrespective of whether they were true or not. The Court found that the injunction was not necessary in a democratic society, insofar as the picture concerned a person who had entered the public arena, that no detail of his private life had been disclosed and that the article touched upon issues of general interest (violation of Article 10).

This case present similarities to that of News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 11/04/00, Resolution ResDH(2001)1. During the examination of this case, the Austrian authorities indicated that, given the direct effect given to the Convention and the European Court’s case-law by Austrian courts, the publication of the judgment in German in a number of Austrian legal journals would ensure for the future an interpretation of Section 78 of the Copyright Act in conformity with this judgment, thus avoiding new violations of the same kind.

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgement.

*H46-59 34320 Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland, judgment of 18/07/2002 –

Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the allegation of the applicant – a political party – that its freedom of expression had been violated on account of a decision of the Austrian courts by which it had been convicted for insulting a political figure (Section 115 of the Criminal Code) in 1996 and ordered to pay damages following the publication of a caricature in its periodical (complaint under Article 10).

H46-60 32636 A.T., judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

The case concerns the lack of public hearing in two proceedings concerning the applicant’s compensation claims under the Media Act following the publication of statements against him in the weekly publication News (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgment, other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

H46-61 36075 Siegl, judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the length of land consolidation proceedings and the alleged consequent breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his property (complaints under Articles 6§1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1).

*H46-62 32097 Biegler Bau GesmbH, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1).

The sum agreed to in the settlement was paid on 08/04/2002.

- 1 case against Bulgaria

*H46-63 40061 M.S., judgment of 04/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

This case relates to the applicant’s detention in a psychiatric hospital which was ordered by a prosecutor on the basis of an unpublished instruction by the Chief Public Prosecutor (Guidelines No. 295/85) and without seeking a prior medical opinion on the applicant’s state of mental health (complaint under Article 5§1).

The case concerns issues almost identical to those arising in the Varbanov against Bulgaria case (judgment of 05/10/2000) which will be re-examined by the Committee of Ministers at its 819th meeting (3 and 4 December 2002) for supervision of adoption of legislative reforms to prevent new similar violations.

It may be noted that the Court specifically refers to the Committee of Ministers' supervision of the execution of the Varbanov judgment to conclude that the present friendly settlement is based on respect for human rights and thus admissible under the Convention (see §15 of the judgment).

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46-64 50516 Georgiadis, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 9 December 1992 and finished on 21 January 1999 (more than six years and one month).

*H46-65 47293 Selim, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case relates to the fact that the applicant was unable to exercise the right to marry and found a family on account of the absence in the Republic of Cyprus, at the time of the facts of the case, of any legislation or alternative regulations covering the right of Turkish Cypriots to civil marriage (complaints under Articles 8, 12, 13 and 14).

General measures: confirmation has been received that a new Law 46(I)2002 providing for the temporary application of the Marriage Law (Cap. 279) to members of the Turkish Community was enacted by Parliament on 25 April 2002 and was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic on 2 May 2002. Furthermore, a new, all-encompassing Bill on Civil Marriage (“The Civil Marriage Law 2002”), which will apply to all Cypriots without distinction of origin, has been tabled in Parliament for enactment.

- 1 case against Croatia

*H46-66 45435 Radoš & others (Gojko Mikecin)[5], judgment of 04/07/2002 –

Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1). It presents similarities with the cases of Horvat (judgment of 26/07/2001) and other length of procedure cases against Croatia which are examined in section 4.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business.

Section 2

- 2 cases against Finland

H46-67 31611 Nikula, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

The case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of her conviction in 1994 for defamation (under Article 27§2 of the Criminal Code in force at the time of the facts) following certain statements she made, as a lawyer, during a trial. She was sentenced to pay damages to the plaintiff as well as costs (violation of Article 10).

The provisions concerning defamation were amended in 2000 (Act. No. 531/2000) and provide that persons may no longer be charged with defamation in circumstances similar to those of this case.

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgment and wide dissemination to the tribunals and the Supreme Court.

H46-68 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002

The case concerns an infringement to the applicants’ general right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. A piece of land owned by the spouse and father of the applicants (since deceased) was subject to expropriation. The market value of the land for the expropriation compensation was fixed at 7,50 Finnish Marks per square metre, despite the applicants’ contestations. However, when assessing the inheritance tax to be paid by the applicants for the land at issue, its market value was fixed at 20 Finnish Marks per square metre. The Court considered that the applicants could legitimately expect a reasonably consistent approach from the relevant authorities and the courts in determining the market value of the land or, in the absence of such consistency, an adequate explanation for the different valuations. In this case, there was neither consistency nor explanation for the lack of it (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 26 cases against France

H46-69 32872 Peltier, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns an infringement to the applicant’s right of access to a court in order to challenge a speeding ticket. An official of the prosecutor’s office had, on grounds not provided in the relevant legislation, rejected the applicant’s appeal against the fine and request for a court hearing, illegally denying him his right of access to an appropriate court (violation of Article 6§1).

*H46-70 32911+ Meftah, Adoud & Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/2002 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings before the Court of Cassation. The applicants chose to defend themselves rather than be represented by a member of the Court of Cassation Bar. Consequently, they did not benefit from the practice – reserved to members of the Court of Cassation Bar – according to which the content of the Advocate-general’s submissions are transmitted to defendants’ counsel, assuming they are members of the Court of Cassation bar, who thus have the opportunity to reply in written form to the court when it is deliberating. Given the nature of the submissions in this case and of what was at stake for the applicants in the proceedings, their right to adversarial proceedings was infringed (violation of Article 6§1).

The case presents similarities to the case of Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00, which is to be examined in Section 4.2 of this agenda and order of business.

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

H46-71 37971 Sociétés Colas Est, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 16/07/2002

The case concerns a violation of the applicant companies’ right to respect of their premises. The applicants are road construction companies which were investigated in 1985 as part of an administrative inquiry. As part of this operation, investigators from the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Repression of Fraud, investigated 56 companies simultaneously, pursuant to the provisions of Order no. 45‑1484 of 30 June 1945. They seized several thousand documents from which they ascertained that illicit agreements had been made in respect of certain contracts. On the basis of the seized documents the Minister for the Economy referred the matter to the Competition Council, which fined the applicants for engaging in illegal practices. The applicants appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal challenging the lawfulness of the searches and seizures, which had been effected without a warrant. The European Court took the view that the time had come to acknowledge that in certain circumstances the rights guaranteed by Article 8 could be construed as including the right to respect for a company’s head office, branch office or place of business. The Court found the impugned operations had taken place without adequate or sufficient guarantees against abuse, the relevant authorities having very wide powers at that time: the investigators had entered the applicants’ premises without a warrant and without a senior police officer being present. The Court considered that in these circumstances, even if the conditions for the exercise of the right of entry were less stringent with regard to the commercial premises of legal persons, the actions in question were not proportionate to the aims (violation of Article 8).

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment.

H46-72 38436 APBP, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant company’s right to a fair trial on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the trial bench in proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat (violation of Article 6§1).

This case presents similarities with the Kress case (judgment of 07/06/01).

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-73 46044 Lallement, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

The case concerns the fact that the applicant was deprived of his property as a result of an expropriation carried out in the public interest. The Court took the view first that, given the specific nature of the applicant’s situation (in particular the scattered nature of his land and his agricultural specialisation) the compensation awarded was not proportionate to the value of the property expropriated since it did not specifically cover the loss of the applicant’s “working tool” and secondly that the relevant articles of the Code on expropriation proposed no effective remedy to the situation called into question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

H46-74 36677 SA Dangeville, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 16/07/2002

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. The company brought an action requesting the refund of the VAT which it had paid in respect of the financial year 1978 relying a European Community Directive which entered into force on 01/01/78 which exonerated various business activities, including those carried out by the applicant company, from payment of the tax. This claim was dismissed not least on the ground that a directive could not be relied upon by an individual litigant against a provision of national law. The applicant lodged a second application, which was dismissed by a further judgment of the Conseil d’Etat, holding that the applicant could not seek to obtain, by way of an action for damages, satisfaction which had been refused in the tax proceedings in a decision which had become res judicata. The European Court of Human Rights noted that in both its applications the applicant was a creditor of the state on account of the VAT wrongly paid for 1978 and that in any event it had at least a legitimate expectation of being able to obtain a refund. The European Court found that the interference with the applicant company’s possessions did not satisfy the requirements of the general interest and that this interference was disproportionate because of its inability to enforce its debt against the State

Section 2

and the lack of domestic proceedings providing a sufficient remedy to protect its right to respect for enjoyment of its possessions, upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment.

H46-75 44952+ Van der Kar & Lissaur Van West, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-83 39626 Granata, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of article 6§1). In the Van der Kar and Lissaur Van West cases, proceedings began on 29 September 1992 and ended on 28 October 1999 (more than seven years). In the Granata case, proceedings began on December 1991 and ended on 5 July 2001 (about nine and a half years).

H46-76 42406 Vallar, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violation of article 6§1). These proceedings have been completed at national level.

H46-77 44797+ Etcheveste & Bidart, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). These proceedings, which began on 19 May 1988 and ended on 31 March 2000, lasted more than 11 years and 10 months.

H46-78 47007 Arnal, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-84 50996 Grand, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

H46-90 51818 Société Comabat, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative court (violations of Article 6§1). These proceedings, completed at national level, have lasted six years and three months in the Arnal case, more than five years and four years and three months in the Grand case, and almost seven years in the Société Comabat case.

H46-79 55672 Beaume Marty, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-80 46280 Benzi, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-82 49622 Goubert & Labbe, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-87 44485 Moullet, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

H46-91 56198 Societe Industrielle d’Entretien & de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-89 41946+ Ribes J.M. & M.A., judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 07/08/2002

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative court (violations of Article 6§1). When the Court issued its judgments, these proceedings had already lasted more than 8 years and 4 months, more than 13 years and 3 months, more than 7 years, more than 13 years and 7 months, more than 7 years et 3 months, respectively, and were still pending. In the Ribes case, two sets of proceedings were at issue. One of them has been completed at national level: other had already lasted more than 5 years and 9 months and was still pending.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Accelerating the proceedings.

Section 2

H46-81 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-92 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji & Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002

*H46-88 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 10/07/2002[6]

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts and particularly before the Conseil d’Etat (violations of Article 6§1). In the Chaufour case, the period to take into account is of more than 4 years before the Conseil d’Etat (from 29/06/95 to 28/07/99). These proceedings have already given rise to the finding of a violation of Article 6§1 for the period from 20 February 1985 to 28 June 1995, upon which date the former European Commission of Human Rights adopted its report (Application No. 22153/93, Resolution DH(97)382 of the Committee of Ministers). In the case of Gentilhomme and others, the proceedings lasted more than 7 years and 1 month in front of the Conseil d’Etat (from 12/06/91 to 29/07/98). In the Ouendeno case, proceedings lasted more than 10 years and 4 months (from 18/09/91 to 30/01/02, including a period of more than 3 years and 2 months before the Conseil d’Etat).

These cases presents similarities to the case of Caillot and the other cases of length of proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat which are scheduled to be examined at the 819th meeting (3-4 December 2002).

H46-85 57753 C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

(No debate envisaged)

The case relates to the excessive length of compensation proceedings BEFORE administrative courts, introduced by the first applicant, her parents and her brother, the first applicant having discovered after a blood transfusion that she had been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus and with the hepatitis C virus (violation of Article 6§1). These proceedings, which began on 23 March 1998, were still pending when the Court rendered its judgment having at that date lasted more than three years, 10 months.

Possible individual and/or general measures: accelerating the proceedings.

H46-86 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

The case concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative court (violation of Article 6§1). When the Court delivered its judgment, these proceedings had already lasted more than 9 years and 2 months, and more than 6 years and 4 months respectively, and were still pending. The case also relates to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about the length of proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Possible individual and/or general measures: Accelerating the proceedings, publication of the judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-93 42588 Linard, judgment of 25/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-94 45573 Moyer, judgment of 25/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative court (complaints under Article 6§1).

- 2 cases against Germany

H46-95 45181 Volkwein, judgment of 04/04/2002, final on 04/07/2002

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 8 October 1992 and finished on 1 October 1998 (almost six years).

Section 2

*H46-96 46544 Kutzner, judgment of 26/02/2002, final on 10/07/2002

The case concerns in particular the fact that decisions of German courts withdrawing the applicants’ parental authority in respect of their two daughters constituted interference in their right to respect for their family life (violation of Article 8).

On 12 February 1997, the guardianship tribunal decided provisionally to withdraw the applicants' rights to choose where the children lived and to make decisions concerning the need for medical measures. At that time, the children were six and four years old. On 27 May 1997, the tribunal entirely withdrew the applicants' parental authority over their two children.

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

- 13 cases against Greece

H46-97 48679 AEPI S.A., judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

The case concerns a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court, in that its appeal on points of law introduced through the Prosecutor against a judgment refusing to allow it to participate in certain criminal proceedings as a civil party, was dismissed by the Court of Cassation as being out of time. The Court of Cassation found that the appeal should had been introduced within a time-limit starting on the date of delivery of the judgment and not on the date when its text was finalised and thus available to the applicant company (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and dissemination of the judgment to the criminal courts; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-98 41727 Yagtzilar & others, judgment of 06/12/2001, final on 10/07/2002[7]

The case concerns a disproportionate constraint upon the applicant’s right of access to a court, in that the courts decided at an advanced stage of certain proceedings pursued by the applicants diligently and in good faith, that their claim for compensation for their expropriated property was out of time (violation of Article 6§1). It also concerns the excessive length of these proceedings (more than 63 years of which nine fall under the Court’s jurisdiction) which ended in 1997 (violation of Article 6§1) and the lack of any compensation for the applicants’ deprivation of their possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case presents similarities with the Malama case which appears in Section 5.3 of the present annotated agenda and order of business.

Possible other general and/or individual measures: publication of the judgment and dissemination to the civil courts; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-99 53478 Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing due to the fact that, in 1998, the indictments chamber of the Court of Appeal, after having discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicant, held, without hearing and ruling proprio motu, that no compensation should be granted to her for her allegedly unlawful detention pending trial (violation of Article 6§1).

As regards the lack of a hearing, this case presents some similarities with those of Georgiadis, Sinnesael and Goutsos (judgments of 29/05/1997, 25/11/0998 and 30/07/1999 respectively) which are examined in section 4.1 of the present annotated agenda and order of business.

In the present case, unlike the above-mentioned cases, the indictments chamber justified its refusal to grant compensation in respect of the detention undergone by the fact of the applicant’s own “gross negligence”.

Individual measures: similar to those in the cases Georgiadis etc.

General measures: already adopted (see the cases Georgiadis etc.).

Section 2

H46-100 46356 Smokovitis & others, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in that, in 1995 during proceedings they had brought against the State, the Court of Appeal applied as “truly interpretative” a law (no. 2233/1994) adopted pending the proceedings and in reality determining retrospectively the substance of the dispute in favour of the State. The Court of Appeal thus quashed a first instance decision granting the applicants a financial benefit (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns a breach of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, since the adoption of legislation retrospectively depriving them of their claims was unjustified (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The case presents some similarities with the Agoudimos case (judgment of 28/06/2001) which appears in section 6. Following Agoudimos judgment, the President of the Court of Cassation sent a circular (N° 29/06/02/2002) to the judges inviting them not to apply laws of this kind which are incompatible with the Greek Constitution and the Convention.

H46-106 47734 Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/2002, final on 14/06/2002

H46-101 47541 Vasilopoulou, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the refusal of the administration to comply with certain decisions of the Court of Audit delivered in 1997, granting the applicants supplementary pensions and declaring unconstitutional Section 3 of the Law n° 2512/1997. According to this provision, any relevant claim was statute-barred and any pending judicial proceedings set aside (violation of Article 6§1). Despite the fact that the Government had so far remedied similar problems with other persons by the Ministerial decision n° 71320/2000, the applicants have still not received the sums in question and challenged the efficiency of this measure.

In the second case, the Court found in addition that the Court of Audit’s judgment had created an established right to payment in the applicant’s favour and that the belated adoption of the ministerial decision upset the fair balance between the protection of the applicant’s right to property and the requirements of the general interest (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

These case present similarities to those of Logothetis (judgment of 12/04/2001), which is examined in section 4.2 and Antonakopoulos and Georgiadis Dimitrios (judgments of 14/12/1999 and 28/03/2000) which appear in section 6 following the constitutional and legislative measures already adopted.

Possible other general and/or individual measures: both judgments of the European Court have been published on the official Internet site of the State Legal Council (<http://www.nsk.gr>) and disseminated to the authorities directly concerned. See also the Logothetis case.

*H46-102 46355 Tsirikakis, judgment of 17/01/2002, final on 10/07/2002[8]

The case concerns the excessive length (more than 13 years and 3 months) of certain civil proceedings which started in 1988 concerning judicial recognition of the applicants’ ownership in the context of the expropriation of a part of a small island. When the Court delivered its judgment, the case was still pending before the Court of Cassation (violation of Article 6§1). On 24/12/1998 the applicants finally withdrew the compulsory-purchase compensation which had been placed on deposit for them on 04/11/1983.

The case also concerns the protracted uncertainty experienced by the applicants about both the amount of compensation fixed, which had seriously depreciated by the passage of time, and the fate of the unexpropriated part of their land, given that the State, contesting their ownership, had declared the whole island to be public property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: The judgment has already been published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its dissemination to civil courts and to the competent administrative authorities would be useful; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

H46-103 48392 Hatzitakis, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in that he could not obtain the compensation determined by the courts for the expropriation of his property because of the excessive length of the procedure concerning the recognition of his entitlement to that compensation. As there was no Land Registry covering that region of Greece, the authorities had been unable to give an immediate answer to the question of whether the State had any property rights over the land and they had to resort to this complex procedure (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). On 19/09/2001, the applicant was recognised as entitled to compensation and he could obtain it at any moment.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment to the competent administrative authorities; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-104 47730 Entreprises Meton & Etep, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (more than 9 years, of which 5 years for the hearing of three witnesses). When the Court delivered its judgment the proceedings were still pending before the court of first instance.

The case presents similarities, in particular to those of Academy Trading Ltd (judgment of 04/04/2000) and LSI Information Technologies (judgment of 20/12/01) which appear in section 6 following a number of general measures already adopted.

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and dissemination of the judgment to the civil courts; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-105 50529 Teka Ltd, judgment of 26/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1). It presents similarities to the case of Academy Trading Ltd and others, closure of which is proposed following a number of general measures already adopted.

H46-107 49215 Angelopoulos, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

H46-108 46806 Sakellaropoulos Yeoryios, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

H46-109 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 07/08/2002

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings relating to civil rights and obligations before administrative courts. In the first case, two proceedings lasted respectively 8 years, 10 months and 7 years, 10 months. When the Court delivered its judgment they were still pending, the first before the Council of State and the second before the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal. In the second and third cases, the proceedings lasted respectively 11 years, 10 months and 9 years, 1½ months before the Council of State and ended in 1998 (violation of Article 6§1).

These cases present similarities, for example, with those of Sakellaropoulos, application No. 23436/94, ResDH(2002)49 and Pafitis (judgment of 26/02/98), Varipati (judgment of 26/10/99), etc. which appear in Section 6 following the general measures already adopted.

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgments of the European Court; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 1 case against Hungary

H46-110 38937 Erdős, judgment of 09/04/2002, final on 09/07/2002

(No debate envisaged)

The case relates to the excessive length (7 years and 4 months) of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

Section 2

- 1 case against Ireland

H46-111 39474 D.G., judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002

The concerns the fact that the applicant, at the time a minor suffering from severe personality disorders and consequently a risk to himself and to others, was placed from 27 June to 28 July 1997 in a penal institution ill-suited to fulfil his constitutional rights (violation of Article 5§5d). 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).

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

- 50 cases against Italy

7 Italian cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

*H46-112 38415 C.M.F., judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-113 39797 Guazzone, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

(rectifié le 01/08/2002)

*H46-114 35243 N. & D.A., judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-115 34714 Tacchino & Scorza, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-116 37007 Pittini, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-117 36010 Venturi, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-118 37248 Vietti, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the prolonged impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to implement judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6).

These cases are similar to the case of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99, which will be examined by the Committee of Ministers in December 2002.

12 Italian cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings

(No debate envisaged)

a) 8 cases concerning civil courts

b) 2 cases concerning labour courts

c) 1 case concerning administrative courts

d) 1 case concerning a civil claim for damages brought in connexion with criminal proceedings

Section 2

a) The 8 cases listed in the table below all concern the excessive length of proceedings before civil courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the case of Rizzo, following the applicant’s death, the Court issued ex officio a rectified judgment, which was notified on 9/07/02.

These cases are similar to among others, the Ceteroni case, judgment of 15/11/96.

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Pending cases
H46-119	56084	At.M., judgment of 07/05/02 final on 07/08/02	+ 19 years	Yes
*H46-120	44392	Albergamo, judgment of 28/03/02 final on 10/07/02[9]	+ 11 years and 6 months	Yes
H46-121	41740	Diebold, judgment of 28/03/02 final on 28/06/02	+ 7 years and 9 months	Yes
*H46-122	44396	Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. no. 1, judgment of 12/02/2002, final on 04/09/2002[10]	+ 10 years and 10 months	Yes
*H46-123	44913	Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. no. 2, judgment of 12/02/2002, final on 04/09/2002[11]	+ 8 years and 11 months	No
*H46-124	44914	Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. no. 3, judgment of 12/02/2002, final on 04/09/2002[12]	+ 9 years and 1 month	Yes
H46-125	47479	Mastromauro S.R.L., judgment of 28/03/02 final on 28/06/02	+ 9 years and 6 months	No
H46-126	44409	Rizzo, judgment of 25/10/01final on 25/01/02, rectified on 09/07/02	+ 11 years and 11 months	No

b) The 2 cases listed in the table below concern the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violations of Article 6§1).

All these cases are similar among others, the Ferrari Marcella I case, judgment of 28/07/99.

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Pending cases
H46-127	44428	Nardone Antonio, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 9 years and 7 months	No
H46-128	40151	Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 4 years	No

c) H46-129 44334 Lattanzi & Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts, which lasted, from 1990 to 1997, around seven years and six months (violation of Article 6§1).

This case is similar to among others, the Abenavoli case, judgment of 2/09/97.

d) H46-130 46970 Contardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil claims for damages, which lasted, from 1985 to 2000, more than fourteen years and ten months (violation of Article 6§1).

This case is similar to among others, the Torri case, judgment of 1/07/97.

* * *

Section 2

General measures (concerning all the above 12 cases): The question of general measures required and under way was in particular dealt with in Interim Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437 and DH(2000)135. In the last-named Resolution, the Deputies decided among other things “to resume its consideration of the progress made, at least at yearly intervals (namely at the latest in October 2001), on the basis of a comprehensive report to be presented each year by the Italian authorities.”

At the end of the examination of the first report presented by the Italian authorities (issued under the reference CM/Inf(2001)37), the Committee of Ministers took note of the progress made as well as of a certain number of pending issues in respect of which it was not possible, at that stage, to draw global and final conclusions.

As the information concerning civil, labour and administrative justice seemed to be relatively encouraging, the Committee decided to resume consideration of these issues in December 2002, on the basis of the new annual report to be provided by the Italian authorities in October 2002. As regards criminal justice, the Committee continued its examination in June and July 2002. Having found that the available information did not show any significant improvement in the effectiveness of criminal courts, the Committee invited the Italian authorities to provide the information requested, including in particular comparable and updated statistical data, at the latest in October 2002, before the continuation of the examination in December 2002.

Individual measures (concerning all the above 12 cases): the Italian authorities are invited to provide information on the cases indicated as still pending at domestic level at the time the violation was found by the European Court, and to adopt appropriate measures in order to speed up these proceedings.

H46-131 41221 Troiani Marcello, judgment of 06/12/2001, final on 10/07/2002[13]

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain disciplinary proceedings, which lasted, from 1983 to 1997, more than 13 years and 9 months, involving seven degrees of jurisdiction (violation of Article 6§1).

Section 2

30 Italian cases of excessive length of proceedings before the Court of Audit

(No debate envisaged)

The 30 cases listed in the table below concern all the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Court of Audit (violations of Article 6§1).

All these cases are similar to the Giancarlo Lombardo case (judgment of 26/11/92, Resolution DH(94)25).

Possible individual and/or general measures: acceleration of pending procedures.

Item	Application	Case	Length of the proceedings	Pending cases
H46-132	54282	Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 26 years & 7 months	yes
H46-133	54288	Andreozzi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 26 years & 6 months[14]	no
H46-134	54297	Aniceto, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 11 years & 6 months	no
H46-135	54291	Caproni, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 19 years & 1 months	yes
H46-136	54309	Carretta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 9 years & 5 months	no
H46-137	54313	Castiello, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 24 years & 7 months	no
H46-138	54292	Cerasomma, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 12 years & 11 months	yes
H46-139	54290+	D'Agostino Francesco, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 26 years & 6 months[15] + 18 years & 8 months	no yes
H46-140	54294	Fiore Mario, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 29 years & 11 months[16]	no
H46-141	54280	Giordano, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 31 years[17]	no
H46-142	54302	Incollingo, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 10 years & 4 months	no
H46-143	54301	Jaculli, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 13 years & 11 months	no
H46-144	54278	Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 5 years & 2 months	yes
H46-145	54296	Manera, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 13 years & 1 month	no
H46-146	54312	Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 29 years & 4 months[18]	no
H46-147	54306	Masia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 11 years	no
H46-148	54308	Mignanelli, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 27 years & 4 months[19]	no
H46-149	54318	Picano, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 27 years[20]	no
H46-150	54279	Prete, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 14 years & 11 months	yes
H46-151	54314	Quacquarelli, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 23 years & 10 months	no
H46-152	54284	Radicchi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+29 years and 2 months[21]	no
H46-153	54298	Sabetta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 6 years	no
H46-154	54311	Soave, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 24 years & 6 months	no
H46-155	54303	Spatrisano, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 15 years & 2 months	no
H46-156	54319	Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 18 years & 4 months	no
H46-157	54305	Tamburrini, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 9 years & 8 months	no
H46-158	54285	Tatangelo, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 28 years & 9 months[22]	no
H46-159	54315	Tortolani, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 5 years & 7 months	no
H46-160	54295	Trovato, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 8 years and 10 months	no
H46-161	54317	Zullo Rocco, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02	+ 23 years & 11 months	no

Section 2

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-166 46726 Podkolzina, judgment of 09/04/2002, final on 09/07/2002

The case relates to a violation of the right of the applicant, Latvian national belonging to a Russian speaking minority, to present its candidature at the elections to the Parliament in October 1998 in that she was struck off the electoral lists on the ground of insufficient knowledge of Latvian language. The Court took the view that, in subjecting the applicant to an additional language test with a fundamentally different procedure from normal, the administrative and judicial authorities had effectively imposed upon her a procedure which did not comply with the conditions of fairness of procedure and legal certainty. It also considered that the Riga Regional Court had deliberately decided not to put right the violation committed, as it had chosen to regard the results of the second test, held according to a procedure presenting no basic guarantees of fairness, as irrefutable (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

- 4 cases against Lithuania

H46-162 48297 Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the detention on remand of the applicant, a member of Parliament and Minister of Defense at the time, in the absence of judicial orders (violation of article 5§1 for the periods from 30 November 1997 to 8 December 1997 and from 31 December 1997 to 8 January 1998). It also concerns the fact that the applicant had no opportunity to contest the lawfulness of his detention on remand (violation of article 5§4) and the breach of the presumption of innocence in respect of the applicant by the statements of the President of the Parliament, which prejudged the assessment of the facts by the judicial authorities (violation of Article 6§2).

With regard to the violations of Article 5, this case presents similarities to the case of Ječius against Lithuania (judgment of 31/07/2000), in which Lithuania has already adopted inter alia legislative amendments to prevent new, similar violations (a draft final Resolution is being prepared).

Possible other individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment and its dissemination to the Parliament and the prosecution office with specific reference to the violation of Article 6§2.

H46-163 47679 Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention, there being no judicial orders (violation of Article 5§1 for the periods from 21 September 1996 to 3 January 1997, from 23 September 1997 to 15 October 1998 et from 30 September 1999 to 8 February 2000), to the excessive length of this detention (violation of Article 5§3) and to the fact that the applicant was unable to contest its lawfulness (violation of article 5§4).

This case presents similarities to that of Jecius against Lithuania (judgment of 31/07/2000), in which Lithuania has already adopted inter alia legislative amendments to prevent new, similar violations (a draft final resolution is being prepared).

H46-164 47698+ Birutis & others, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 28/06/2002

The case relates to a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings conducted in 1997 before the Kaunas Regional Court, as the applicants were convicted either solely or partially on the basis of anonymous testimony without the opportunity to question these witnesses or to have them questioned (violation of Article 6§1 and §3d). As a result, the first and second applicants were sentenced to 10 years’ and the third applicant to 6 years' imprisonment.

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

H46-165 44800 Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

(No debate envisaged)

The case relates to unjustified censorship by prison authorities of the applicant's correspondence with international institutions (including the European Commission of Human Rights) and with his wife (violation of Article 8).

The case present similarities to that of Valašinas against Lithuania (judgment of 24/07/01) which will be re-examined at the present meeting (Section 4.2) for control of adoption of general measures (notably the amendment of Article 41 of the Prison Code) to prevent new, similar violations of Article 8.

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-167 36499 Samy, judgment of 18/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case notably concerns the applicant’s complaint that one of his four requests for release from aliens’ detention pending expulsion was not determined speedily as required by the Convention (complaint under Article 5§4).

- 1 case against Poland

H46-168 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment upon her arrest and during detention in a Warsaw sobering-up center (complaint under Article 3).

- 6 cases against Portugal

H46-169 47459 Fernandes João, judgment of 18/04/2002, final on 18/07/2002

H46-170 45725 Malveiro, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 12/06/02

H46-171 46462 Rego Chaves Fernandes, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

H46-172 46464 Vaz Da Silva Girão, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In the Fernandes João case, proceedings started on 25 June 1992 and were still pending before the Loures tribunal at the time of the delivery of the European Court’s judgment (nine years and nine months). In the Malveiro case, proceedings started on 20 April 1987 and finished on 12 May 1998 (eleven years and one month). In Rego Chaves Fernandes proceedings started on 16 March 1992 and were still pending before the Sintra Court at the time of delivery of the European Court’s judgment (nine years and eleven months). In the Vaz Da Silva Girão case, proceedings started on 10 December 1991 and finished on 29 October 1999 (seven years and eleven months).

Possible individual measures: accelerating proceedings in the Fernandes João and Rego Chaves Fernandes cases.

*H46-173 52772 Pereira Palmeira & Sales Palmeira, judgment of 04/07/2002 –

Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1).

Section 2

H46-174 47460 Câmara Pestana, judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain administrative proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 29 June 1992 and were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at the time of the delivery of the European Court’s judgment (nine years and ten months)

Possible individual measures: Speeding-up the proceedings.

- 2 cases against Romania

H46-175 29411 Anghelescu, judgment of 09/04/2002, final on 09/07/2002

H46-176 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin & Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002

These cases concern the Supreme Court’s annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to real estate. The Supreme Court intervened following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of civil procedure, which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions. The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the security of legal transactions and accordingly violated the applicants’ right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicants’ right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised courts’ jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of real estate. It finally considered, in the Anghelescu case, that the Supreme Court’s failure to summon the applicant had deprived him of the opportunity to defend his rights (violations of Article 6§1). These cases also concern the violation of the applicants’ right to their possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In this context, in the Anghelescu case, proceedings aimed at revoking the applicant’s title to property are still pending at national level.

These cases present similarities to that of Brumarescu against Romania (judgments of 23/01/01 and 11/05/01) which will be examined at the 819th meeting (3-4 December 2002) for control of general measures.

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

- 1 case against the Federation Russian

*H46-177 59498 Burdov, judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002[23]

The case relates to non-execution in full or in part over several years by the Russian social authorities of final decisions delivered in 1997-2000 by the Shakhty City Court (Rostov region) which ordered to pay the applicant compensation for damages to his health occurred during his participation in emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear plant (violations of Articles 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The amounts owed were paid on 5 March 2001.

General measure: The Court's judgment (in Russian translation) was published in Rossijskaia Gazeta, an official periodical publishing all domestic official documents and most widely disseminated in the legal circles.

Possible other individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

*H46-178 38794 J.K., judgment of 23/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of various civil proceedings (complaints under Article 6§1).

Section 2

- 26 cases against Turkey

*H46-179 36590 Göç Mehmet, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, first on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings concerning his compensation claim lodged in accordance with Law no. 466 (violation of Article 6§1), and then on account of the non-communication of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s written opinion to the applicant during the appeal procedure before the Court of Cassation (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgment; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

5 cases resulting in friendly settlements involving undertakings by the Turkish Government

*H46-180 32979 Yıldız Özgür, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement (3+6)

*H46-181 29289 Aydın Mehmet, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement (3)

*H46-182 31136 Önder Yalçın, judgment of 25/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-184 26337 Erdoğan Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-185 22281 Yaşa Sıddık, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern in particular allegations of either ill-treatment during police custody or the killing of relatives of the applicants in the course of operations conducted by security forces between December 1992 and January 1995 in Aydın, Izmir, Diyarbakır and Istanbul (complaints under Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

According to the friendly settlements, the Turkish Government, in addition to payment of compensation, undertakes notably to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all the necessary measures – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – to ensure that the right to life and the prohibition of such forms of ill-treatment are respected in the future. The Government also referred to the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of execution of other similar judgments.

The complaints and the governmental undertakings here at issue present similarities with those made in a number of other friendly settlements relating to actions of the Turkish security forces, which will be re-examined at the 819th meeting (3-4 December 2002) for supervision of their implementation.

H46-183 32981 Dede & others, judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 07/08/2002

The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings in particular before the Ankara Martial Law Court whose jurisdiction was abolished by the Law of 27 December 1993 and partly before ordinary criminal courts (violations of Article 6§1). The case presents similarities to the other cases of excessive length of criminal proceedings (Adıyaman and others against Turkey, judgment of 30/10/2001) which will be re-examined by the Committee of Ministers at the present meeting under sub-section 4.2 for supervision of general and/or individual measures.

Possible other general and/or individual measures: Accelerating the pending proceedings, other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

Applicant	Length of the proceedings falling under the jurisdiction of the Court	Case pending
Mr. Kumral	almost 8 years and 11 months	No
Mr. Zabcı	almost 8 years and 11 months	No
Mr. Dede	15 years and 2 months	Yes
Mr. Dirik	15 years and 2 months	Yes

Section 2

H46-186 35076 Erol Ali, judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-187 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-188 27307 Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-204 25753 Özler, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern the alleged violation of the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of their convictions between 1993 and 1994 by State Security Courts following the publication of certain articles and books or, in the Özler case, a speech made at a meeting organised by a human rights association.

In the first two cases, the impugned publications were confiscated and the applicants sentenced to pay fines respectively under Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law and Article 312 of the Criminal Code. In the Ali Erol case, the applicant’s newspaper was banned for one month under Additional Article 2 of the Press Law (complaints under Article 10 and, in the second case, also under Article 6). In the Mehmet Bayrak case, the applicant was twice sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and once to pay fines under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law (complaints under Article 10). In the Özler case, the applicant was sentenced in 1998 under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror law to a year’s prison and a fine (complaints under Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14).

The Court decided to strike these cases out of its list on the basis of friendly settlements reached between the parties. The Turkish Government undertook to pay a sum of money to the applicants and 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. Furthermore, the government undertook to adopt the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction. These cases are comparable to the 18 “freedom of expression” cases against Turkey under Section 4.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business.

H46-189 30448 Önel Ahmet, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002

H46-190 30948 Önel Mehmet, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002

H46-191 30446 Önel Temur, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002

H46-192 31964 Özel Hacı, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002

H46-193 30447 Özel Hacı Osman, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002

H46-194 38916 Atalağ, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-195 38915 Bayram Abdullah Naci, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-196 35867 Bayram & others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-197 37087 Bekmezci & others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-198 37414 Birsel & others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-199 35050 Karabıyık & others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-200 33419 Özdiler Hasan Doğan, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-201 33322 Özdiler & Bakan, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-202 35079 Özkan & others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-203 35866 Ünlü Dudu, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern in particular the applicants’ complaints of breaches of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the administration’s delay in paying additional compensation awarded by domestic courts for expropriation of their property and due to the substantial difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time and the average rate of inflation in Turkey (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or complaints under this provision).

The cases present similarities to those of Akkuş and Aka against Turkey (judgments of 09/07/1997 and 23/09/1998) closed by Resolutions ResDH(2001)71 and ResDH(2001)70 respectively, following a legislative reform which brought the statutory rate of default interest into line with the annual rediscount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debts (the latter rate is fixed and permanently reviewed, taking into account particularly the country’s inflation rate).

Section 2

- 5 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-205 24265 Devenney, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that the termination of his employment through a certificate issued by the Secretary of State under Section 42 of the 1976 Fair Employment Act was held to constitute irrefutable proof that his dismissal had been carried out for the purpose of safeguarding national security or public order and therefore could not be challenged before a court (violation of Article 6§1).

H46-206 46477 Edwards Paul & Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

The case concerns a breach of the positive obligation imposed on the national authorities to protect the life of the applicants’ son, who was killed while in custody by another detainee, considered dangerous, who shared the same cell (November 1994). The case also concerns inefficacity of the inquiry into the death of the applicants’ son as it was not possible to oblige prison staff to give evidence and because the applicants were not sufficiently associated with the investigation procedure (violation of Article 2). Finally, it concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-207 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber

*H46-208 28957 Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber

These cases concern, in particular, the state’s failure to comply with its positive obligation to ensure the right of the applicants (post-operative, male-to-female transsexuals) to respect for their private life, in particular due to the lack of legal recognition given to their gender re-assignment (violation of Article 8) as well as the impossibility for them to marry a person of the sex opposite to their re-assigned gender (violation of Article 12).

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-209 40302 Matthews Michael, judgment of 15/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he had been the object of discrimination on grounds of sex in relation to his right to property in that, when he was 64, the competent authority had refused to grant him a permit entitling him to free travel on most public transport in London. Under the relevant law at the time, such a permit could only be granted to men of 65 or more whereas, in general, women qualified at 60 (complaints under Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken together).

General measures: The Government has indicated (see §7 of the judgment) that, in respect of England, the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 will come into force on 1 April 2003, by virtue of Statutory Instrument 2002/673. As regards Wales, the same effect is achieved by the Travel Concessions (Extension of Entitlement) Order 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001/3765).

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

Action

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

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

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

- 4 cases against Austria

H46-210 32381 Baischer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-211 32899 Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-213 50110 Maurer, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-214 38536 Schreder, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

- 1 case against Belgium

H46-215 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/02

- 35 cases against France

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-216 44070 Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-217 53118 Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-218 41449 Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-219 42038 Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-220 36515 Fretté, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-221 42189 H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-222 41943 L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-223 41476 Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-224 39278 Langlois, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-225 47194 Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H32-226 26242 Lemoine Pierre

H46-227 44617 Leray & others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-228 44791 Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-229 47575 Marks & Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-230 33023 Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-231 37794 Pannullo & Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H32-232 29877 Pauchet & others - Interim Resolution DH(98)100

H46-233 37565 Sapl, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-234 46708 Zaheg, judgment of 9/02/02, final on 19/05/02

- Default interest to be paid

H32-235 39966 De Cantelar

H46-236 49342 Dunan, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-237 49352 Guelfucci, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-238 48167 Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/04/01

H46-239 49350 Ivars, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-240 35589 Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-241 34791 Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-242 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01, final on 07/06/01

H46-243 44211 Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-244 47631 Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/04/01

H46-245 37257 Lucas, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

Section 3.a

H46-246 42195 Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H46-247 41526 Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/11/00

H46-248 40472 Tricard, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-249 39273 Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

H32-250 31677 Watson John

- 4 cases against Greece

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-251 42079 E.H., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-252 53051 Livanos, judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

- Default interest to be paid

H46-253 47020 Kolokitha, judgment of 07/06/01

H46-254 49282 Marinakos, judgment of 04/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 550 cases against Italy

H32-605 38503 G.P. & 25 others

H46-255 25639 F.L., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-256 51672 Selva, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-257 33202 Beyeler, judgments of 05/01/00 (merits) and of 28/05/02 (just satisfaction)

H46-258 31143 Indelicato, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 18/01/02

H46-259 47247 Mercuri, judgment of 11/04/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-260 44968 Amato Del Re, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-261 35797 Arrivabene, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-262 35795 Ferrari Barbara, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-263 42609 Fusco Fabrizio, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-264 28272 Ghidotti, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-265 42444 O.L.B., judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-266 41232 Quartucci, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-267 40037 S.B., judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-268 40537 T., judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-269 44864 V.L. & others, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-270 31260 Lamperi Balenci, judgment of 21/02/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-271 30127 Sciortino, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-272 52969 Romano Almanio Antonio, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-273 52979 An.M., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-274 51671 Arrigoni, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-275 51678 Baioni & Badini, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-276 52987 Barone Antonio & others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-277 52974 Beneventano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-278 51667 Bertot, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-279 52914 Bruno Paolo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-280 56092 Calvagni & Formiconi, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-281 51696 Cappelletti & Dell’Agnese, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-282 52915 Cazzato, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-283 52970 Ciancetta & Mancini, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-284 56095 Colasanti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-285 56085 Cristina, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-286 52925 D’Alfonso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-287 52921 Damiano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-288 44513 D’Ammassa & Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

Section 3.a

H46-289 49372 De Pilla, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-290 52920 De Rosa la Francesco, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-291 52923 De Santis III, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-292 52968 Del Bono & others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-293 56106 Dell’Aquila, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-294 44446 Di Girolamo & 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-295 52978 Di Niso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-296 44519 E.M. II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-297 52972 Falzarano Carmine, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-298 52916 Ferrara Vincenza, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-299 44421 Galasso, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-300 52984 Ge.Im.A.S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-301 56099 Genovesi, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-302 52975 Gucci, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-303 44413 Guerrera Angelo Giuseppe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-304 51708 I.M., judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-305 52957 I.P.A. S.r.l., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-306 56088 IT.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-307 44501 Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-308 52986 L.S., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-309 52958 Lombardo la Francesco, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-310 51668 Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-311 52919 Luciani, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-312 51706 Mannari, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-313 52973 Mattaliano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-314 56101 Mesiti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-315 52926 Mostacciuolo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-316 56089 Murru V, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-317 56098 Pelagatti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-318 52976 Policriti & Gioffré, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-319 41803 Pupillo, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00; revised judgment on just satisfaction of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-320 52971 R.L., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-321 52962 Raffio, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-322 44524 Ragas, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-323 52913 Rapisarda, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-324 51664 Rodolfi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-325 51710 Rossi Gianbattista, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-326 52988 Rossi Maria Giovanna, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-327 51704 Rota Giacomo & Gianfranco, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-328 51705 Rota Roberto & Giuseppe, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-329 52977 Savona II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-330 52918 Scinto, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-331 52983 Seccia, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-332 52959 Sessa, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-333 52989 Sirufo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-334 56093 Società Croce Gialla Romana S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-335 51670 Sordelli & C. S.n.c., judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-336 51711 Spanu, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-337 56105 Spinelli, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-338 56094 Sposito, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-339 52990 Stabile, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-340 49314 Steiner & Hassid Steiner, judgment of 06/12/2001, final on 06/03/2002

H46-341 51673 Tiozzo Peschiero L. & L., judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-342 52967 Vaccarella, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

Section 3.a

H46-343 51707 Vanzetti, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-344 56086 Vazzana, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-345 52960 Ventrone, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-346 56096 Venturin, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-347 52965 Vetrone, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-348 52966 Zotti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-349 52963 Zotti & Ferrara I, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-350 52964 Zotti & Ferrara II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-351 56226 Abate & Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-352 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-353 56208 Conte & others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-354 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-355 56224 D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-356 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-357 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-358 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-359 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-360 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-361 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-362 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-363 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/2001, final on 06/03/2002

H46-364 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-365 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-366 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-367 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-368 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-369 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-370 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-371 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-372 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-373 44345 Rinaudo & others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-374 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-375 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-376 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-377 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-378 44333 V.P. & F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-379 44346 Venturini Alberto II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-380 56206 Colonnello & others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-381 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-382 51031 Aceto & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-383 51089 Armellino la Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-384 51093 Armellino Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-385 52824 Belviso & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-386 56091 Bernardini, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-387 56103 Bevilacqua Giovanni, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-388 52804 Bianco Pellegrino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-389 52816 Biondi & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-390 51030 Biondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-391 51150 Calabrese, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-392 51134 Cardo Cristina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-393 51146 Cardo Elisa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-394 51127 Carolla, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-395 52835 Cerbo & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-396 52801 Ciarmoli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

Section 3.a

H46-397 52815 Cimmino & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-398 51112 Circelli Maria Antonia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-399 52807 Ciullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-400 52821 Colangelo Domenico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-401 51116 Colella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-402 51147 Crisci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-403 51164 Crovella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-404 56104 Cullari, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-405 51154 Cuozzo la Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-406 51149 Cuozzo Giovanna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-407 51163 D’Angelo Michele, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-408 51125 De Filippo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-409 51098 De Rosa Giovanna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-410 51141 De Rosa Maria, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-411 51137 Del Grosso Nicola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-412 51160 Del Re, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-413 51027 Del Vecchio Anna Rita, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-414 51155 Della Ratta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-415 51129 Di Dio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-416 51131 Di Maria, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-417 52846 Di Meo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-418 51099 Di Meo Franca, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-419 52813 Di Meo & Masotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-420 51092 Di Mezza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-421 51157 Di Resta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-422 51143 Donato Pepe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-423 51119 Esposito Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-424 51145 Falluto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-425 51121 Falzarano Pasquale, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-426 51156 Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-427 51091 Ferrara Clementina, judgment of 28/02/02/, final on 28/05/2002

H46-428 51128 Ferrara Serafina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-429 51144 Fiorenza Carmine, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-430 51142 Formato, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-431 52843 Franco & Basile, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-432 52924 Frattini & others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-433 51161 Gagliardi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-434 51103 Gattone & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-435 51135 Gaudino Palma, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-436 47186 Gentile Agostino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-437 52830 Giannotta & Iannella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-438 51148 Gisondi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-439 51159 Grasso Alfonsina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-440 48411 Grasso Armando, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002[24]

H46-441 51094 Iacobucci & Lavorgna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-442 51153 Iannotta Antonietta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-443 51102 Iesce & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-444 51120 Izzo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

Section 3.a

H46-445 51170 Izzo Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-446 51021 La Torella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-447 52802 Lagozzino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-448 52812 Lavorgna & Iorio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-449 51140 Lombardi Emma, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-450 51100 Lombardi Gaetana, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-451 52822 Macolino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-452 52819 Mancino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-453 51169 Marotta Alberto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-454 51138 Marotta Arturo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-455 51168 Martino Alfonso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-456 52827 Mastrocinque Mafalda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-457 51167 Matera Tommasina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-458 51101 Maturo & Vegliante, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-459 52845 Mazzarelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-460 51130 Mazzone & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-461 51158 Meccariello, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-462 51118 Melillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-463 51677 Meneghini, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002

H46-464 52818 Meola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-465 51133 Moffa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-466 52840 Mongillo Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-467 51136 Nazzaro, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-468 52832 Nero & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-469 51029 Ocone, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-470 51105 Pacifico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-471 51114 Paduano, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-472 52829 Pallotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-473 51023 Palmieri Maddalena, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-474 51022 Palmieri Mario la Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-475 52841 Panza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-476 52842 Pascale Elda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-477 52826 Pascale Maria Annunziata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-478 52837 Pascale & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-479 51111 Patuto Salvatore, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-480 51113 Pelosi Concetta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-481 51162 Pengue, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-482 52808 Perna Giuseppina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-483 51025 Petrillo Gino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-484 52828 Petrillo & Petrucci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-485 51139 Pilla Addolorata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-486 51024 Porto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-487 52825 Pucella & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-488 51126 Raccio Emilia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-489 51109 Restuccio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-490 51095 Riccardi Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-491 52820 Riccardi Vicenzina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

Section 3.a

H46-492 51096 Riccio & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-493 51108 Rinaldi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-494 52823 Romano & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-495 52844 Romano Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-496 51151 Ruggiero, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-497 52833 Santagata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-498 51165 Santina Pelosi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-499 51090 Scaccianemici, judgment of 28/02/02, final on28/05/02

H46-500 52982 Sciacchitano & Lo Sciuto, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-501 52917 Serino Antonella, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-502 52831 Simone & Pontillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-503 51115 Spagnoletti, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-504 52839 Tanzillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-505 52810 Tazza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-506 52836 Tazza & Zullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-507 52922 Tommaso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-508 51152 Tretola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-509 52809 Truocchio Edmondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-510 51166 Truocchio Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-511 51124 Tudisco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-512 51097 Uccellini & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-513 52817 Urbano & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-514 51026 Uzzo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-515 52811 Villari, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-516 44416 Viola, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-517 52847 Viscuso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-518 51028 Vitelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-519 51132 Zeolla, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-520 52814 Zoccolillo & others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-521 52800 Zuotto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-522 54316 Betti, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-523 54293 Chiappetta Domenico, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-524 54287 Ferrari Sergio, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-525 54299 Libertini & Di Girolamo, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-526 44359 Marrama, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-527 54307 Meleddu, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-528 54286 Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement

- Default interest to be paid

H46-529 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01

H46-530 41852 Vaccaro, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-531 39676 Rojas Morales, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-532 26772 Labita, judgment of 06/04/00, final on 06/04/00

H46-533 30882 Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01

H46-534 15918 Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00

H46-535 33354 Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-536 28168 Quadrelli, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 20/03/00

H32-537 19734 F.S. I - Interim Resolution DH(98)209

Section 3.a

H46-538 44481 A.C. VII, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-539 46515 Adriani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-540 46964 Alpites S.P.A., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-541 47785 Angemi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-542 48412 Ar.M., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-543 46958 Ardemagni & Ripa, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-544 39900 Artuso Paolo

H32-545 39137 Avallone

H46-546 44511 Bellagamba, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-547 40977 Beltramo, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-548 44431 Beluzzi & others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-549 39883 Bertozzi, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/04/00

H46-550 44442 Bevilacqua, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-551 36811 Bielectric S.R.L., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-552 44437 Bocca, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-553 39121 Bolla

H46-554 44457 Bonelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-555 44436 Buffalo s.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-556 46534 Burghesu, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-557 46980 C.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-558 35292 Calandrella F., P. & 2 others

H46-559 39881 Capodanno, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/04/00

H46-560 45071 Capurro & Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-561 46526 Carboni, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-562 45859 Caruso Giuseppina, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-563 45861 Cavallaro, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-564 36620 Ceriello, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46-565 46537 Cerulli & Zadra, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-566 45869 Chiappetta, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-567 46959 Circo & others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-568 44504 Citterio & Angiolillo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-569 47779 Ciuffetti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-570 46532 Conte Gaspare & others, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-571 47774 Conti Giuliana, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-572 44385 Cornaglia, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-573 46527 Corsi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-574 35616 Coscia, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H46-575 46538 Costantini la Francesco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-576 44500 Cova, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-577 45880 Cultraro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-578 46536 D.C. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-579 45872 D’Annibale, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-580 40216 D’Arrigo & Garrozzo, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H32-581 40580 De Lorenzi

H46-582 42520 De Simone Pasquale, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-583 39138 Di Fant I

H32-584 39139 Di Fant II

H46-585 46976 Di Motoli & others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Section 3.a

H46-586 46520 Dorigo Franco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-587 44480 E.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-589 39906 Emmebiemme S.r.l.

H46-590 40982 Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-591 46524+ F., T. & E., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-592 46533 F.L.S., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-593 39164 F.S.p.A. II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-594 46971 F.T., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-595 26012 Facciolini

H46-596 46968 Falconi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-597 47781 Farinosi & Barattelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-598 45870 Ferrazzo & others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-599 45868 Filippello Giorgio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-600 38145 Focardi & Conti

H46-601 46965 la Franceschetti & Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-602 38118 Fraschetti

H46-603 44397 G.B. IV, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-604 37131 G.M.N., judgment of 02/11/99, final on 02/11/99

H46-606 46543 G.S. & L.M., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-608 47786 G.V. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-609 46963 Galiè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-610 46528 Giannalia, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-611 47773 Gianni, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-612 45860 Giuseppe Nicola & Luciano Caruso, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-613 40968 I.F., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-614 44418 I.P.E.A. S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-615 39116 I.R., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-616 44447 Ianniti & others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-617 46516 Il Messaggero S.a.s. II, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-618 46517 Il Messaggero S.a.s. III, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-619 46518 Il Messaggero S.a.s. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-620 46519 Il Messaggero S.a.s. V, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-621 47777 Ilardi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-622 44508 Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02[25]

H46-623 39894 Italiano, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-624 46530 Iulio, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-625 40924 L. S.r.l., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-626 46542 Lanino, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-627 31341 Lazzari & Scagnoli

H46-628 45853 Lo Cicero, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-629 40571 Lo Sardo

H46-630 46523 Lonardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-631 46962 Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-632 44406 M. S.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-635 46961 Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-636 44443 Marchi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

Section 3.a

H46-637 46957 Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-638 44422 Marzinotto, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-639 46966 Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-640 46979 Mastrantonio la Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-641 44420 Mauri, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-643 44425 Tedesco Michele, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-644 46973 Morelli & Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-645 44490 Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-646 39872 Nata

H46-647 46522 Nolla, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-648 44494 O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-649 44468 P.B. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-650 40570 Padalino V. & G., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-651 40952 Paderni II, judgment of 05/04/00- Friendly settlement

H32-652 21707 Panissa, D., G. & A. Vittonetto

H32-653 39155 Perilli & Gigotti Micheli

H46-654 45070 Persichetti & C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-655 44380 Pettirossi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-656 28936 Piccinini II, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-657 39899 Pirilli

H46-658 45065 Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-659 46967 Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-660 46969 Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-661 44412 Quattrone Pasquale, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-662 38498 Rando, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-663 45058 Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-664 44465 Rigutto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-665 43098 Romano, judgment of 28/09/00

H32-666 35328 Roselli Italo II

H46-667 44479 Rosetti e Ciucci & C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-668 44527 Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-669 44472 Rossi Valeria, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-670 44461 Sacchi Roberto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-671 44466 Santoro Valerio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-672 47780 Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-673 44419 Sbrojavacca Pietrobon, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-674 36621 Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46-675 44491 Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-676 44470 Spada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-677 39705 Spurio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-678 39865 Staffolani

H46-679 44417 Tagliabue, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-680 38102 Talenti

H46-681 44486 Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-682 46539 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. VII, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-683 45068 Toscano & others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-684 44488 Vecchi & others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-685 44528 Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-686 44534 Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-687 40586 Verini II

H46-688 40599 Vicari II, judgment of 15/02/00

H46-689 44395 Visentin, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-690 37166 Vitale & others, judgment of 02/11/99

H46-691 44445 W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

Section 3.a

H46-692 44462 Zanasi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-693 37079 Zironi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-694 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-695 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

H46-696 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-697 41807 Centioni & others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-698 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-699 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-700 41813 Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-701 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-702 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

H46-703 41814 Zeoli & 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

H46-704 41829 Campomizzi, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-705 41833 Cardillo, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

H46-706 41821 Delicata, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-707 41823 Pascali & Conte, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-708 41831 Pio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-709 41819 Quinci, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-710 41830 Raglione, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H32-711 39175 Sileo

H46-712 41820 Sinagoga, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

H46-713 41837 Trotta, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-714 41841 Vay, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

H46-715 41818 Vero, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

H32-716 40566 De Cicco Concetta

H46-717 44517 Mari & Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-718 45854 Savino, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-719 38878 Ciacci, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-720 42351 Del Giudice, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-721 45267 F.R. & 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-722 41603 G.B.Z., L.Z. & S.Z., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 15/02/00

H46-723 41094 Giannangeli, judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01

H46-724 32646 Guerresi, judgment of 24/04/01, final on 24/04/01

H46-725 41893 Martinez, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-726 44943 Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-727 29898 Patanè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-728 30132 Pepe Umberto, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

H32-729 36733 Perilli

H32-730 24170 Pesce Mario

H32-731 26806 U.O. I

H32-732 26781 U.O. II

H32-733 26782 U.O. III

H46-734 37118 Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-735 43199 Visintin, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-736 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-737 45856 Bacigalupi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-738 45857 Comella & others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-739 45858 Tesconi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-740 40363 Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-741 43063 Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-742 43094 C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-743 42999 Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 -Friendly settlement

H46-744 43020 Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-745 36615 Cappello

H32-746 38095 Cardillo

Section 3.a

H46-747 46521 Ciccardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-748 42996 Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-749 44532 Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-750 43088 Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-751 43086 Cosimo Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-752 43087 Cosimo Rotondi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-753 43083 Simone D’Addona, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-754 43017 D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-755 43059 D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-756 43054 Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-757 43051 Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-758 43062 Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-759 46975 Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-760 43030 Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-761 43022 Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-762 46978 F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-763 43056 Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-764 43058 Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-765 45855 Fr.C., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-766 43096 G.A. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-767 43093 G.P. VI, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-768 43075 Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-769 37170 Giampietro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-770 38975 Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-771 43050 Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-772 43074 Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-773 39124 Guagenti, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-774 43072 Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-775 43091 Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-776 42998 Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-777 43101 Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-778 43021 Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-779 43067 Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-780 43065 Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-781 43102 Lepore T., Lepore M. & Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-782 43068 Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-783 43095 M.C. X, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-784 43010 Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-785 37160 Marsicovetere

H46-786 43000 Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-787 43018 Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-788 43069 Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-789 43057 Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-790 43064 Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-791 43100 Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-792 43076 P.T. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-793 43012 Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-794 43052 Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-795 43061 Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-796 43060 Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-797 43023 Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-798 46974 Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-799 43019 Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-800 43055 Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

H46-801 43099 Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-802 43085 Silvio Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-803 42997 Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-804 43084 Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-805 46960 Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-806 43016 Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-807 43070 Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-808 43109 Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-809 43015 Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-810 43066 Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

- 11 cases against Poland

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-811 26229 Gaweda, judgment of 14/03/02

H46-812 25196 Iwańczuk, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-813 43779 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02

H46-814 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H32-815 27506 Owczarzak

H46-816 36250 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-817 29692+ R.D., judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-818 32499 Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-819 34158 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

- Default interest to be paid

H46-820 27918 C., judgment of 03/05/01

H32-821 24559 Gibas

- 17 cases against Portugal

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-822 48233 Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-823 48959 Azevedo Moreira, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-826 48752 Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-827 49020 F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-828 45560 Guerreiro, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 30/04/02

H46-829 44872 Magalhães Pereira, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-830 49018 Marques Jorge Ribeiro, judgment of 04/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-831 43999 Martins Serra & Andrade Cancio, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-832 47584 Martos Mellado Ribeiro, judgment of 30/05/02 Friendly settlement

H46-833 43654 Pires, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-834 49118 SIB - Sociedade Imobiliária Da Benedita Lda, judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-837 44298 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

H46-838 48526 Viana Montenegro Carneiro, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

- Default interest to be paid

H46-824 46772 Baptista Do Rosàrio, judgment of 04/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-825 45648 Caldeira & Gomes Faria, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-835 46143 Sociedade Panificadora Bombarralense Lda., judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-839 48960 Conceição Fernandes, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

- 1 case against Romania

- Default interest to be paid

H46-840 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) & 11/05/01

(rectification) – Grand Chamber

- 1 case against Slovenia

H46-841 42320 Belinger, judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 10 cases against Turkey

H46-842 27694 A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-843 32985 Altan, judgment of 14/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-847 28496 E.K., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-848 30492 Erat & Sağlam, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-851 31889 Orak Abdurrahman, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 10/05/02

H46-854 29856 Özcan Mehmet, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-856 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02

H46-857 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-859 22723+ Yazar, Karataş, Aksoy & the People’s Labour Party (HEP), judgment of 09/04/02[26]

H46-860 27532 Z.Y., judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

- 4 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-862 35605 Kingsley, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 28/05/02 – Grand Chamber

H46-863 38784 Morris, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-864 38550 Sawden, judgment of 12/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-865 46295 Stafford, judgment of 28/05/02 – Grand Chamber

3.b SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST

SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT

EXPIRED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

Some of the cases appearing under this section concern late payment for reasons beyond the control of the Governments concerned.

Expiry date

of the time-limit set

- 1 case against Austria

H46-866 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01 17/12/01

- 18 cases against France

H32-867 26984 Picard 31/01/99

H46-868 34000 DuRoy & Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01 03/04/01

H32-869 25971 Proma di Franco Gianotti 14/05/00+02/01/01

H46-870 32033 Thurin, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01 28/05/01

H46-871 29731 Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01 13/08/01

H46-872 39066 Donnadieu, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01

H32-873 31409 Riccobono 26/09/01

H46-874 43713 Joly, judgment of 27/03/01, final on 27/06/01 27/09/01

H46-875 33592 Baumann, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01 22/11/01

H46-876 35683 Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01 06/12/01

H46-877 41333 Brochu, judgment of 12/06/01, final on 12/09/01 12/12/01

H46-878 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 19/12/01

H46-879 40096 Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01 10/01/02

H46-880 42211 Zannouti, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01 31/01/02

H46-881 44069 G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02 02/04/02

*H46-988 30979 Frydlender, arrêt du 27/06/00 27/09/00

*H32-989 32510 Peter 24/10/00

*H46-1027 38042 Zanatta, A. & J.-B., arrêt du 28/03/00, définitif le 28/06/00 28/09/00

- 22 cases against Italy

H32-882 15800+ Perego & Romanet 12/04/93

H32-883 25249 Cazzorla & Gigante 25/09/96

H32-884 28725 Manzi A., B. & L. 11/10/97

H32-885 27189 Bevilacqua 21/10/97

H46-886 38135 Sanna, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00 11/07/00

H46-887 20855 Esposito Luigi, judgment of 25/05/00 25/08/00

H46-888 43097 Nicoli, judgment of 22/06/00 22/09/00

H46-889 44330 Principe & others, judgment of 19/12/00 19/03/01

H46-890 44365 Calvani, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01

Section 3.b

H46-891 44370 D’Innella, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01

H46-892 44367 G.G. IV, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01

H46-893 44369 Pe.C., judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01

H46-894 44368 Sapia, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01

H32-895 23924 C.A.R. srl 07/06/01

H46-896 43269 Leoni, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 04/04/01 04/07/01

H46-897 44362 Di Deco, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/01

H46-898 44375 Rocchi Roberto, judgment of 29/03/01 29/07/01

H46-899 41806 Alesiani & 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01

H46-900 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01

H46-901 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01

H46-902 35956 Galatà & others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01

H46-903 35972 Grande Oriente D’Italia du Palazzo Giustiniani,

judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01 12/03/02

- 2 cases against Poland

H46-904 26760 Werner, judgment of 15/11/01 15/02/02

H46-905 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02 04/04/02

- 46 cases against Turkey

H46-906 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01 04/07/01

H46-907 34688 Akin, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/01

H46-908 19265 Atak & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/01

H46-909 19279 Göçmen & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/01

H46-910 19285 Karabulut Cemile & others, judgment of 30/01/01,

final on 30/04/01 30/07/01

H46-911 19303 Celal & Keziban Şen, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01 10/10/01

H46-912 19661 Çalkan Gülnahar, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-913 19662 Çalkan Rabia, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-914 19663 Çapar Ekrem, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-915 19664 Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-916 19665 Çalkan Seyfettin, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-917 19666 Çapar Nuri, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-918 19668 Dalgiç Hayrettin, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-919 19669 Dalgiç Necati, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-920 19670 Dişçi Dursun, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-921 19671 Dişçi Hasan, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-922 19672 Dişçi Osman, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-923 19673 Güneysu Davut, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-924 19674 Kartal Ali, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-925 19675 Koç Hasan, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

Section 3.b

H46-926 19676 Koçer Ayse, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-927 19678 Öztürk Ali, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-928 19679 Öztürk Gülfiye, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-929 19681 Öztürk Kamil, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-930 19682 Öztürk Muhsin, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-931 19683 Öztürk Mustafa, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

H46-932 19640 Akça Halim, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-933 19641 Akçay Mehmet, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-934 19642 Akkaya Ahmet, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-935 19643 Akkaya İbrahim, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-936 19644 Akkaya Mustafa, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-937 19645 Balci Hüseyin, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-938 19646 Balci Macit, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-939 19647 Baltekin Bilge, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-940 19648 Başar Halil, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-941 19649 Başar Talip, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-942 19650 Bilgin Ahmet, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-943 19651 Bilgin Mahmut, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-944 19652 Bilgin Mehmet II, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-945 19653 Bilgiç Yusuf, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-946 19654 Dinç Fethiye, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-947 19655 Dokel Ünzile, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-948 19656 Eğrikale Saadettin, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-949 19657 Erol Naside II, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-950 19658 Erol Recep, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

H46-951 19659 Erol Sefer, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

Table summarising the total number of cases by States

State	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum although payment due since more than 6 months	Payment after expiration of the time-limit set and no confirmation of payment of the default interest due
Austria	4	1
Belgium	1
France	19	18	16
Greece	2		2
Italy	274	23[27]	276
Poland	9	2	2
Portugal	13		4
Romania			1
Slovenia	1
Turkey	10	47[28]
United Kingdom	4	4[29]

3.c EXAMINATION OF SPECIAL PAYMENT PROBLEMS (FOR EXAMPLE THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE APPLICANT, DISPUTES REGARDING THE EXACT AMOUNT PAID AS A RESULT OF EXCHANGE RATE PROBLEMS OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES)

- 2 cases against Italy

H46-952 53705 M.L. & 46 others, judgment of 05/04/01 – Friendly settlement

Addendum General Questions

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings brought by haemophiliacs seeking compensation for damages suffered following blood transfusions infected with various viruses (complaints under Article 6§1). The proceedings in the present case are the same as those challenged in the cases A.B., E.F. and C.C. (Application No. 37874+, Interim Resolution DH(98)392), M.A. and 81 others (Application No. 44814+, Friendly settlement of 30/11/2000) and Mas. A. & 207 others (Application No. 53708, Friendly settlement of 07/06/2001).

Payment problems: The Court struck this case out of its list on the basis of a friendly settlement agreed between the parties according to which the Italian Government offered to pay to each of the 47 applicants certain sums, ranging from 15 000 000 Italian lire to 75 000 000 Italian lire (for a global sum of 1 910 000 000 Italian lire – see the detailed list available at the Registry of the Court) for non-pecuniary damages as well as, to all the applicants, the global sum of 20 000 000 Italian lire for costs and expenses. Although the Government had undertaken to pay these sums before 5 July 2001, the payment of costs and expenses has not yet been made, while the other sums were in fact paid between 11 and 13 September 2001, i.e. with a delay of more than two months. The Italian authorities have argued that no default interest is due because the friendly settlement did not include any clause on the subject: the applicants’ counsel has accordingly invited the Committee of Ministers to express its views on the lawfulness of such a position. At the 775^th meeting (December 2001), it was recalled that, according to the practice of the Committee of Ministers, the payment of default interest was due whenever the payment took place more than three months after the date at which the judgment became final. This also applies to friendly settlements, unless the parties have explicitly agreed different terms. A letter recalling these principles was addressed to the Italian authorities on 30 January 2002.

Subsequently however, at the 783^rd meeting (February 2002), the question of the application of default interests in the supervision of the execution of friendly settlements was raised in other cases; the Deputies instructed therefore the Secretariat to prepare a document summarising the considerations to be taken into account concerning this issue and agreed to resume its consideration at their 792^nd meeting (16, 17 and 19 (3 p.m.) April 2002). Having not found an agreement, the Deputies decided to reconsider the matter at their 798^th (June 2002), 803^rd (July 2002) and 810^th (October 2002) meetings (DH) in the light of written contributions that the Delegations would send to the Secretariat (see General Questions, item d. and Addendum General Questions).

Section 3.c

H46-953 53708 Mas A. & 207 others, judgment of 07/06/01 – Friendly settlement

Addendum General Questions

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings brought by haemophiliacs seeking compensation for damages suffered following blood transfusions infected with various viruses (complaints under Article 6§1). The proceedings in the present case are the same as those challenged in the cases A.B., E.F. and C.C. (Application No. 37874+, Interim Resolution DH(98)392), M.A. and 81 others (Application No. 44814+, Friendly settlement of 30/11/2000) and M.L. & 46 others (Application No. 53705, Friendly settlement of 5/04/2001).

- 37 cases against Turkey

H46-954 30947 Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-955 26093+ B.T. & others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-956 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01*

H46-957 25182+ Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

H46-958 25724 Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-959 31963 Özel & others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-960 27697+ Yaşar & others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-961 19310 Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-962 19308 Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-1087 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01[30]

H46-1091 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00[31]

H46-1099 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00[32]

In these cases the applicants and/or the Secretariat have identified various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems concern mostly more or less substantial shortfalls in payment, due among other things to currency conversion and/or delays in payment (default interest).

The Turkish authorities have undertaken to examine these problems with a view to settling the outstanding amounts due in accordance with the Court’s judgments. Information is awaited on the progress made to that effect.

Section 3.c

The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of these 25 cases at the 819th meeting

H54-963 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98

H54-964 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96

H54-965 23178 Aydin, judgment of 25/09/97

H54-966 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98

H54-967 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98

H54-968 22495 Yaşa, judgment of 02/09/98

H46-969 23657 Çakici, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-970 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-971 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00[33]

H46-972 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00

H46-973 22492 Kiliç, judgment of 28/03/00

H46-974 20764 Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00

H46-975 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00

H46-976 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber

H46-977 22277 IlhanNasir, judgment of 27/06/00

H32-978 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin & Dündar

H32-979 25658 AslantaşSedat - Interim Resolution DH(99)560 of 08/10/99[34]

H46-980 22947+ AkkoçNebahat, judgment of 10/10/00

H46-981 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00

H46-982 23819 Bilginİhsan, judgment of 16/11/00

H46-983 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00

H46-984 25801 DulaşZubeyde, judgment of 30/01/01

H46-985 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-986 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01

H46-987 23954 Akdeniz & others, judgment of 31/05/01

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

(See Addendum 4 for part or all these cases)

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise the progress made in the adoption of the implementing measures in the following cases raising several problems. Supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will be issued in Addendum 4. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these items on a case-by-case basis.

SUB-SECTION 4.1 – SUPERVISION OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES ONLY[35]

- 1 case against France

H46-990 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

The case concerns the sentencing of the applicant, a Moroccan national, to permanent exclusion from French territory even though the offences he committed cannot be considered particularly serious, and given that the applicant has strong links with France but none with Morocco except for the mere fact of nationality (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: By letter of 4 December 2001, the Delegation of France informed the Committee of Ministers that the applicant had been placed on a compulsory residence order (precondition for lodging an application for rescission of an exclusion order) by decision of 3 July 2001. The issue concerning the rescission of the exclusion order and the delivery of a residence permit to the applicant remains to be examined. A letter dated 28/08/02 was sent to the Delegation, and information in response is awaited.

- 6 cases against Greece

H54-991 21522 Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

H32-992 32397 Sinnesael - Interim Resolution DH(99)130

H32-993 34373 Goutsos - Interim Resolution DH(99)558

These cases concern the unfairness of certain proceedings before the Greek criminal courts, insofar as they had rendered, proprio motu, without hearing the applicants and without providing adequate reasons, final decisions denying them any right to compensation for their allegedly illegal detention, following their acquittal (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: Already adopted (Article 93§3 of the Constitution as amended in April 2001, Act No. 2915/29/05/2001 amending Articles 535 et 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, see CM/Del/OJ/OT(2001)757, section 4.2).

Individual measures: In view of the nature of the violations found, the advisability of reopening the impugned proceedings has repeatedly been mentioned in the Committee of Ministers, since 1997. The Greek Parliament adopted an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure allowing the reopening of domestic proceedings following findings of violations of the Convention (Article 525§5 as amended by Article 11 of Act No. 2865/19.12.2000). However, this amendment only allows reopening for persons who have been convicted, which is not the case of the applicants. At the 798^th meeting (June 2002), the Greek Delegation announced that a special committee in the Ministry of Justice dealing with cases requiring legislative amendments following judgments of the European Court was preparing a draft law which could remedy the violations in the present cases. Information is awaited concerning the concrete provisions adopted.

Sub-section 4.1

H54-994 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

H46-995 38178 Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H54-996 23372+ Larissis & others, judgment of 24/02/98

These cases concern various criminal convictions imposed on the applicants in violation of the Convention (violations of Articles 9 or 10).

Individual measures: the necessity to strike these convictions from the applicants’ criminal records has repeatedly been pointed out before the Committee of Ministers. The Greek authorities initially indicated that the Minister of Justice was preparing an interpretative circular which should allow the courts to strike convictions from criminal records without reopening the whole proceedings. Even so, following the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits the reopening of national proceedings following violations found by the European Court (Article 525§5 as amended by Article 11 of Act No. 2865/19/12/2000), the Greek authorities indicated that the striking out of these convictions from the applicants’ criminal records could only be possible in future through re-opening the criminal proceedings in question. A request could be formulated for this purpose by the applicants as well as by the prosecutor. In the second case, the applicant made such a request which was upheld by the competent court. The convictions were declared void and, since the impugned crimes had already been prescribed, the proceedings were discontinued. In the two other cases, the possibility of reopening is being examined by the prosecutor. Further information is awaited.

- 1 case against Italy

H54-997 12151 F.C.B., judgment of 28/08/91 - Resolution DH(93)6

This case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings: the applicant was sentenced, in absentia, in 1984, to twenty-four years’ imprisonment without the domestic court having ascertained whether he had effectively intended to waive his rights to appear and defend himself (violation of Articles 6§1 and 6§3.c).

In March 1993, the Deputies adopted Resolution DH(93)6, closing the examination of this case, on the basis of the information given by the Government of Italy on the general measures adopted in order to prevent new similar violations. The question of the individual measures was not raised, inter alia because the impugned judgment did not seem likely to be enforced.

Individual measures: In October 1999, the applicant’s lawyer indicated that the violation found by the Court had not been remedied and that the applicant still ran the risk of serving the 24-years sentence imposed in the proceedings impugned by the European Court as his extradition had now been sought. The Secretariat drew the attention of the Italian authorities to the problems that imposing this sentence would raise as to Italy’s compliance with the Court’s judgment and the question of the reopening of the proceedings was raised. In September 2000, the Italian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the Ministry of Justice had revoked its request for the applicant’s extradition. According to the applicant’s lawyer, however, the applicant still runs the risk of being expelled from any country where he might wish to settle because he has no valid identity documents following his conviction. Subsequently, in 2001, the Permanent Representation of Italy forwarded to the Secretariat a draft bill, aimed at introducing into Italian law the possibility to reopen cases following serious violations of the Convention. This text, however, would allow for such a re-examination only in case of violation of Article 6§3 of the Convention and would not apply to cases decided by the Committee of Ministers (cf. Recommendation No. R(2000)2). On 22 March 2001 the Director General of human rights addressed a letter to the Italian authorities, drawing attention to the shortcomings in the proposed legislative text. Details on the time-frame envisaged for the adoption of this draft law have also been requested. At the 783^rd meeting (February 2002), the Deputies adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)30, encouraging the Italian authorities to ensure the rapid adoption of new legislation in conformity with the principles in the Recommendation No. R (2000)2 and decided to resume consideration of the matter once new legislation had been adopted or, at the latest, at the present meeting (October 2002).

Sub-section 4.1

- 2 cases against Poland

H46-999 29455 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-1000 35843 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01

These two cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, apparently still pending before domestic courts (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 757^th (June 2001) and 783rd (February 2002) meetings the Polish authorities were invited to take measures with a view to accelerating the impugned proceedings. On 22 April and 4 July 2002, the Secretariat received letters from the applicant in the Pogorzelec case complaining that the proceedings in his case were still pending at the domestic level. At the time of issuing this annotated agenda no new information with regard to the present state of the impugned proceedings was available.

- 4 cases against Portugal

H46-1001 35593 Galinho Carvalho Matos, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain compensation proceedings before civil courts. The case was still pending before the Almada Court when the Court issued its judgment and had already lasted seven years and six months, from 18 May 1992 to November 1999 (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual measures: Accelerating the proceedings still pending before the Almada Court.

H46-1002 37010 Conde, judgment of 23/03/00, final on 23/06/00

H46-1003 36668 Fertiladour S.A., judgment of 18/05/00, final on 18/08/00

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (4 years and 7 months, still pending before the Court of Portimão when the European Court delivered its judgment in the first case; more than 13 years, still pending before the Court of Mangualde when the European Court issued its judgment in the second case) (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Committee has asked whether the proceedings are still pending before the Courts of Portimão and Mangualde

H46-1004 42918 Nascimento, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings. The case was still pending before the court of appeal of Porto when the Court issued its judgment and had already lasted fourteen years and seven months, from 18 February 1987 to September 2001 (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Accelerating the proceedings which seem to be still pending before the Appeal Court of Porto.

Sub-section 4.1

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H54-1007 19187 Saunders, judgment of 17/12/96 - Interim Resolution DH(2000)27

H46-1008 29522+ I.J.L., G.M.R. & A.K.P., judgment of 19/09/00

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right not to incriminate themselves and thus their right to a fair trial in that, at their trials, the prosecution made use of statements given earlier, under legal compulsion and in different proceedings, to Department of Trade and Industry Inspectors (violations of Article 6§1). After the Deputies had decided, on the basis of the information available at the time, to mandate the Secretariat to draft a resolution with a view to closing the examination of the first case, a complaint dated 15 April 2002 was received from the applicants to the effect that they have so far been unable to obtain redress.

Individual measures: The applicants complain in particular of certain obstacles recently encountered in the proceedings they have engaged in order to have their convictions re-examined and overturned following the European Court’s judgments. They request the Committee to adjourn the examination of their cases until these domestic proceedings have concluded.

In support of their request, the applicants make a number of points, including the following:

Following the European Court’s judgments, their case was referred to the Court of Appeal for new examination by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as the latter had found that there was a real possibility that the Court of Appeal might not uphold the convictions because of the decisions of the European Court.

However, while their case was pending before the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords held in another case concerning a situation which had not been brought before the European Court, that the right to rely on Convention rights in any legal proceedings guaranteed by the Human Rights Act did not have retroactive effect (i.e. before 2 October 2000). In a subsequent judgment, also adopted while the proceedings before the Court of Appeal in the present cases were pending, the House of Lords reached the opposite conclusion but found that, in the interest of judicial certainty, the erroneous construction in its first judgment should not be overturned.

In its decision of 21 December 2001, the Court of Appeal notably indicated “that…if we concluded that we were bound to give effect to the Strasbourg Court’s decision that the trial was unfair by examining anew the safety of the convictions, we would not uphold the convictions on the basis that they are safe in any event” (§47). However, the Court of Appeal did not find itself so bound under Article 46 of the Convention (especially §§50-53). Neither did it uphold any other ground of appeal. Accordingly, it concluded that the convictions were safe and dismissed the appeal (§86). The applicants sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

On 11 February 2002, the Court of Appeal certified that the appeal raised a point of law of general public importance, namely whether the House of Lords decision not to give retroactive effect to the Human Rights Act also covers the situation where the United Kingdom is under the obligation by virtue of Article 46 of the Convention to abide by the European Court’s judgment. On 9 March 2002, the House of Lords granted leave to appeal. The applicants indicate that the case is listed for hearing on 9 October 2002.

At the 798^th meeting (June 2002) the Representative of the United Kingdom objected to the applicants’ request for an adjournment, referring notably to the following considerations: the authorities have done all that was required by the Court’s judgment (payment of just satisfaction and legislative reform to prevent recurrence of the violations found). Even if reopening of proceedings is a desirable measure in certain circumstances, the Convention does not require such a measure in all circumstances, and in particular not in respect of cases such as the applicants’. No question had indeed been raised before in these cases regarding any necessity of reopening the proceedings. Moreover, a requirement to reopen or to quash the applicants’ convictions could risk opening the floodgates to reopening requests in respect of cases in which there had been, or might have been, a violation of a Convention right at trial many years ago, something that would risk undermining the “controlled introduction” of the Convention rights into domestic law achieved through the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, the adjournment request appeared primarily to be an attempt to bolster the arguments run domestically. If the appeal failed, this might, however, possibly give raise to an allegation of a fresh violation of the Convention. Such a complaint should, however, be pursued through the ordinary procedure before the European Court. In conclusion the Representative urged the Committee to agree to the closure of the case.

During the 803^rd meeting (July 2002), the Deputies decided to resume consideration of this issue at their 810^th meeting (October 2002), after having examined the pertinent documents provided by the applicants. General measures: The legislative amendments announced in Interim Resolution DH(2000)27 have been adopted.

Sub-section 4.1

H46-1105 36533 Atlan A. & T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

The case concerns the absence of a fair trial in that, in criminal proceedings against the applicants, the prosecution repeatedly denied the existence of evidence pertinent to a central issue of the defence and, without the knowledge or approval of the judge, decided that this evidence should not be disclosed to the judge or to the defence.

The case presents similarities to that of Rowe and Davis against the United Kingdom (judgment of 16/02/2000), closure of which is proposed following the adoption of general measures by the United Kingdom.

Individual measures: During the 775^th meeting, the Government was asked whether the case would be reviewed through the Criminal Cases Review Commission as in the Rowe and Davis case. Information on this issue is awaited.

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

- 5 cases against Austria

H46-1010 24430 Lanz, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 30/04/02

The case concerns an interference with the applicant’s defence rights in that his contacts with his defence counsel during his detention on remand had been under the surveillance of the investigating judge (violation of Article 6§3b & c). It also concerns a breach of the principle of equality of arms since the prosecution’s observations concerning the applicant’s request to be freed from detention on remand, his plea of nullity and his appeal had not been communicated to him (violation of Articles 5§4 and 6§1).

A regards the violations of Articles 5§4 and 6§1, the case presents similarities to that of Bulut (judgment of 22/02/1996) closed by Resolution DH(97)500 following a legislative amendment according to which the communication of the observations may be dispensed with only if the prosecutor supports the accused or if the accused’s appeal is upheld by the tribunal in full.

General measures: The publication of the judgment and its wide dissemination to criminal courts would be useful. Information is awaited about the measures envisaged in order to remedy the violation of Article 6§3b & c.

H46-1011 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02[36]

H46-1012 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02[37]

H46-1013 35673+ Schweighofer & others, judgment of 09/10/01, final on 09/01/02

The case concerns the excessive length of several criminal proceedings which ended in 1997 and lasted between 8 years and 1 month and 11 years and 1 month of which periods between 1 year and 4 months concerned the preliminary investigations (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: At the 792^nd meeting it was indicated to the Government that the publication and dissemination of the judgment to criminal courts and public prosecutors would be useful. The Government was also requested to provide information concerning other measures that could be envisaged in order to avoid the constant repetition of the violation. Information on this issue is awaited.

H46-1014 33730 Weixelbraun, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02[38]

- 3 cases against Bulgaria

H46-1015 33977 Ilijkov, judgment of 26/07/01

The case concerns the excessive length (more than 3 years and 3 months) of the applicant’s detention on remand (violation of Article 5§3), to the lack of effective judicial review of its lawfulness following applications for release and to the lack of adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Court in respect of these applications (violations of Article 5§4). The case also concerns the excessive length (more than 5 years and 5 months) of the criminal proceedings as a whole (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: At the 764^th meeting (September 2001), the attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn to §104 of the judgment which reveals that according to the law and established practice in Bulgaria, the prosecution and the individual are not on an equal footing in proceedings before the Supreme Court, since the prosecutor submits arguments which are not communicated to the detainee, who cannot therefore respond (cf. § 61 in fine of the judgment). The Bulgarian authorities have thus been invited to envisage legislative and possibly other measures to put an end to this practice so as to respect the principle of adversarial proceedings under Article 5§4 of the Convention. It was also requested that the judgment be translated, published and disseminated with a circular to domestic courts. At the time of issuing of the present annotated Agenda, the Secretariat had not yet been informed of any progress in adoption of such measures.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1016 29221+ Stankov & the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

The case concerns a breach of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly on account of the prohibition by the Bulgarian authorities of a number of commemorative meetings planned by the applicants between July 1994 and August 1997. The Court concluded that in the circumstances of the case, where there was no real foreseeable risk of violent action by the applicants or of incitement to violence or any other form of rejection of democratic principles, this interference, although prescribed by law and pursuing legitimate aims, was not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus not justified under the Convention (violation of Article 11).

Individual and general measures: During the first examination of the case (792^nd meeting, 16-17 April 2002), it was noted that the violation here at issue was mainly due to errors in administrative and judicial practice and information on possible measures to avoid new similar violations was requested. The publication and wide dissemination of the judgment were suggested in particular.

The Bulgarian authorities subsequently informed the Secretariat that the judgment (in Bulgarian translation) had been disseminated with an explanatory letter by the Vice-Minister of Justice to the mayors of the two towns concerned (Petrich and Sadanski). It was also specified that these authorities' practice had changed as from the beginning of 2001, as evidenced by the fact that the applicants were authorised to hold their peaceful meetings. As regards changes in judicial practice, specific examples have been sought showing that the Convention requirements, as established by the Court's judgments, are effectively taken into account in domestic court case-law.

H46-1018 41488 Velikova, judgment of 18/05/00, final on 04/10/00

The case relates to a breach of the right to life since it has been concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s partner died as a result of injuries inflicted on him while he was detained in police custody on charges of cattle theft (violation of Article 2). It also concerns the lack of effective investigation by the Bulgarian authorities into the applicant’s death (violations of Article 2 and 13).

General measures: At the 732^nd meeting (December 2000), it was stressed in particular that certain administrative measures (instructions to examining magistrates and prosecutors drawing their attention to §§ 78-79, 82-84 and 89 of the judgment; a circular to judges stressing their powers to supervise investigations) could help prevent similar shortcomings in criminal investigations. Having regard to the Court’s conclusions in §§68-76 of the judgment, the need for training for the police has also been underlined. Furthermore, information on the possibilities of engaging the civil responsibility of the State and statistics relating to the criminal investigation of officers in similar circumstances have also been requested.

In response, the Bulgarian Delegation has provided the following information:

- the judgment has been translated and is going to be published;

- the last legislative amendments adopted on 27 April 2001 provide for judicial review of the prosecutor’s decisions to close the criminal proceedings and enable courts to send the file back to the prosecutor with instructions to carry out specific investigations;

- the Ministry of Justice disseminated the judgment to the director of the national police, to the General Prosecutor and to the director of the service of special investigation with comments on the conclusions to draw from the Court’s findings;

- in 2001 a total of 500 police officers attended 5 seminars on the requirements of the Convention and of the CPT to be respected in the exercise of their duties; other similar education and training activities are under way;

Recently, the Bulgarian authorities informed the Secretariat of an important working meeting held in Sofia on 9 May 2002 at which various measures adopted or being taken by the enforcement authorities to improve protection against torture and ill-treatment were discussed (information on these measures is presently being examined by the Secretariat).

Information on other questions raised in relation to this case, in particular that concerning the effectiveness of domestic remedies against torture and ill-treatment, is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46-1021 30873 Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

The case mainly concerns the inhuman treatment inflicted upon the applicant by state officials during his arrest before being admitted to hospital in Larnaca (violation of Article 3) and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The applicant’s lawyer sent a letter to the Secretariat on 19 April 2001 raising several questions about the need to adopt individual measures in this case. In May 2001 the Secretariat forwarded a copy of the letter to the Cypriot authorities. The latter confirmed that they were presently examining the measures that might need to be taken in respect of this case and indicated that the Secretariat would be kept informed in written form of any development in this field.

On 26 September 2002, the Secretariat received a letter from the applicant’s lawyer requesting among other things precise information about the measures presently under examination by the Cypriot authorities. He also request information as to whether the Attorney-General had instituted criminal proceedings against the officers involved and, if that is not the case, what reasons had been given. Finally, he requests that a copy of his letter be made available to all the Deputies.

On 27 September 2002, a copy of the letter was sent to the Permanent Representative of Cyprus.

On 1 December 1995, the Attorney General filed at the Nicosia District Court a nolle prosequi in the applicant’s case, in accordance with Article 113.2 of the Constitution. The applicant was released on the same day. On 4 December 1995, the Nicosia District Court discharged the applicant.

General measures: As in the Denizci & others case, also examined under section 4.2, the Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judicial and also police/security forces, Attorney General’s Office, Ombudsman, Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all state officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged.

Finally, the judgment of the European Court has received extensive media coverage in the country. The Cypriot authorities have transmitted to the Secretariat, in written form, details of the above-mentioned information in Greek. An English and/or French summary of the information is still awaited.

The Committee has requested that, apart from the information already requested in the Denizci & Others case applicable also to this case, whether, as far as the violation of Article 13 is concerned and in the light of §§ 71 and 99 of the Court’s judgment, the Cypriot authorities envisage the adoption of specific measures in order to guarantee that similar violations do not recur. Information about the publication of the judgment has been requested.

H46-1022 25316+ Denizci & others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01

The case concerns in particular the fact that the applicants (and in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were subjected to ill-treatment considered inhuman by the European Court (violation of Article 3), that they have been victims of unlawful arrest and detention (violation of Article 5§1) and that they have been subjected to restrictions on their freedom of movement (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

Individual measures: The Cypriot authorities have stated that the applicants were released from detention. The Committee has asked whether the investigation proceedings, which started in 1995, are still open (paragraph 23 of the judgment).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: The Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judicial and also the police force/security forces, the Attorney General’s Office, the Ombudsman, the Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all State officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the code of criminal proceedings were already amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged. Finally, the judgment of the European Court has received extensive media coverage in the country. The Cypriot authorities have transmitted to the Secretariat, in written form, details of the above-mentioned information in Greek. An English and/or French summary of the information is still awaited.

The Committee has requested that, in the summaries in English and/or French to be sent to the Secretariat, reference to the maximum time allowed before detainees can have access to a magistrate or lawyer be included. Furthermore, information was also requested as to the existing disciplinary proceedings against police/security officers who acted in excess of their powers (including examples of some disciplinary sanctions infringed) and as to whether an adequate compensation/remedy was available. Exact references as to the publication and the dissemination of the judgment have been requested.

- 5 cases against Croatia

H46-1025 51585 Horvat, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-1024 49706 Rajak, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-1019 54727 Cerin, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-1020 52634 Futterer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings which lasted more than 6, 25, 17 and 11 years respectively. The Court’s jurisdiction, taking into account the date of Croatia’s accession to the Convention, extends respectively to 3 years and 8 months; 3 years and 7 months; 3 years and 11 months, and 3 years and 10 months (violations of Article 6§1). When the Court delivered its judgments, the cases were still pending at first instance.

The Horvat case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law, since the formal institution of proceedings upon a complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court depended on the discretion of the latter (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: In the Rajak case the first instance proceedings have come to an end and appeal is pending. In the Horvat case there are two proceedings, one of which has come to an end by a final decision. Further information is awaited.

General measures: The judgments have already been translated, published on the official Internet site of the Government www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html and disseminated to domestic courts. The first two judgment have also been published in the bulletin of the Association of Croatian Judges “Sudac” (“The judge”), N° 5/2001.

As regards the violation of Article 13, a new Act amending the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court entered into force on 15/03/2002. According to Article 59a of this Act, the Constitutional Court is obliged to institute proceedings upon a constitutional complaint concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings, before other legal remedies have been exhausted, when it is completely evident that serious and irreparable consequences could arise for the complainant. In addition, it has the power to set a time-limit to the competent court to decide the case as well as the power to grant just satisfaction.

As regards the violation of Article 6§1, a reform of the Act on Civil Procedure is under way. The relevant draft law sets out to reconstruct the system on new principles (adjudication of cases by a single judge as a general rule, limitation of the ex officio conduct of the evidence procedure, obligation to present evidence and facts at preliminary hearings, principle of perpetuation of jurisdiction, limitation of the competence of the court of appeal to decide only on the questions raised by the appeal, stricter conditions for the use of extraordinary legal remedies). It also aims to prevent the abuse of procedural rights and strengthen procedural discipline (broader imposition of fines for procedural abuses, imposition of costs and expenses on the basis of the culpability principle without right to appeal, delivery of judgments by default when defendants do not respond to the complaint within the time-limit). Further information concerning progress with this draft is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1023 48778 Kutić, judgment of 01/03/02, final on 01/06/02

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court in order to obtain a determination of their civil claims for damages resulting from terrorist acts. In fact, even before the first-instance court decision, legislation was adopted ordering that all proceedings of this kind were to be stayed until new provisions were enacted to regulate the matter. When the European Court delivered its judgment more than 4 years had elapsed and no new legislation had been passed in the meantime (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The judgment was translated and published on the official Government Internet site (www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html) and disseminated to the courts. In addition, a draft law amending the Act on Civil Obligations provides inter alia for the continuation of the currently stayed proceedings. Further information on this issue is awaited.

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

H46-1026 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber[39]

- 3 cases against France

H46-1028 36436 Piron, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01[40]

H46-1029 29507 Slimane-Kaid II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 23/05/00[41]

*H46-852 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

The case concerns the right to a fair trial before the criminal chamber of the Cour de cassation in that the applicant could not reply to the conclusions of the Advocate General because they were not communicated to him and because he was not informed of the date of the hearing (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The Secretariat initially suggested that measures should be taken in order to permit applicants who have chosen, as authorised by domestic law, to defend themselves without assistance, to obtain the content of the conclusions of the Advocate General and to have the opportunity to reply in written form to the court when it is deliberating. It had been decided to wait for the judgment of the Court in the cases of Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni. The case Meftah and others has been delivered (See Section 2 of this draft annotated agenda and order of business) and confirms the violation of Article 6. Information on measures to be adopted by the authorities are awaited.

- 6 cases against Greece

H46-1030 40907 Dougoz, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01[42]

H46-1031 28524 Peers, judgment of 19/04/01[43]

H46-1032 38460 Platakou, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 06/09/01

The case concerns three violations of the Convention:

- A disproportionate constraint upon the applicant’s right of access to a court, in that her request to have the amount of compensation for her expropriated property finally fixed was declared inadmissible by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that she had failed to comply with the time-limit set by law, even though this failure was the result of an error by the official bailiff. Furthermore, although the applicant subsequently submitted a special request to two different courts, neither examined the merits of her complaint concerning this error (violation of Article 6§1).

Sub-section 4.2

- A breach of the principle of equality of arms in that the applicant could not benefit from the provision providing for the suspension in favour of the State of all judicial time-limits during the period of the judicial vacations (violation of Article 6§1).

- A lack of a reasonable relationship between the compensation determined by the domestic courts and the value of the applicant’s property (violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The judgment was published in Greek on the official Internet site of the State Legal Council www.nsk.gr and in Nomiko Vima, 2001, p. 765 and disseminated to the courts of all jurisdictions and to the Orders of official bailiffs. Following the Court’s judgment, the Court of Cassation in plenary decided in another case (concerning a situation which had not been brought before the European Court), that the longer suspension of all judicial time-limits during the period of the judicial vacations provided only in favour of the state by Article 11 of the decree of 26/06/10/07/1944, violated the principle of equality of arms as established in the Constitution (Article 4§1) and the Convention (Article 6§1). For this reason, based on the European Court’s judgment in the present case, it extended the suspension period provided for the individuals to the same length and found that their appeal was not out of time.

H54-1033 18748 Manoussakis & others, judgment of 25/09/96

The case concerns the applicants’ criminal conviction for establishing a Jehovah’s Witnesses’ place of worship of without authorisation from the Minister of Education and Religious affairs, who had not answered their repeated applications (violation of Article 9).

Individual measures: The applicants received this authorisation on 13/01/1997. As regards the striking-out of the convictions from the applicants’ criminal records, the Government indicated that it would only be possible through re-opening the criminal proceedings in question. A request could be formulated for this purpose by the applicants as well as by the prosecutor (see the information in the cases Grigoriadis, Serif, Larissis, section 4.1.). The possibility of such a request is being examined by the prosecutor. Further information is awaited.

General measures: Since the beginning of the examination of the case (see CM/Inf(98)27), the Committee of Ministers reiterated the Court’s finding (§§ 45, 47 of the judgment), according to which the legislation in force (Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 20/05 - 02/06/1939) was incompatible with Article 9 of the Convention, insofar as it authorises the Minister to estimate the existence of a “real need” of the religious community applying to establish a church. The Government informed the Committee of Ministers that the administration had changed its practice and had granted many authorisations to establish places of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It added that the Council of the State effectively examines the decisions taken by the Minister (see the case of Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der letzten Tage, judgment 1543/1995). It was, however, indicated to the Government that an amendment appeared desirable, because the above-mentioned provision creates legal uncertainty and, in the case of failure of judicial control, it could give rise to new similar violations. Information on this issue is awaited.

H46-1034 44584 Tsironis, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02[44]

*H46-1035 46352 Logothetis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01 and judgment of 18/04/02

(Article 41), final on 18/07/02

The case concerns the refusal of the administration to comply with certain decisions of the Court of Audit delivered in 1996 and 1997, granting the applicant supplementary pension and declaring unconstitutional section 3 of Law n° 2512/1997. According to this provision, any relevant claim was statute-barred and any pending judicial proceedings set aside (violation of Article 6§1). Despite the fact that the Government had so far remedied similar problems with other people by Ministerial decision n° 71320/2000, the applicant has still not received the sums in question and challenged the efficacy of this measure.

This case presents similarities to those of Antonakopoulos and Georgiadis Dimitrios (judgments of 14/12/1999 and 28/03/2000) which appear in section 6 following the constitutional and legislative measures already adopted.

The dead-line for the payment of the just satisfaction is not until 18/10/2002.

Sub-section 4.2

Other general measures : During the 775^th meeting (December 2001), the Government was requested to provide information on the question whether there would be a risk of similar violations in the future because of section 3 of the Law n° 2512/1997. This information is awaited.

- 5 cases against Italy

H32-998 33286 Dorigo Paolo - Interim Resolutions DH(99)258 and ResDH(2002)30)

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings as a result of which the applicant was condemned to more than thirteen years’ imprisonment for, among other things, involvement in a terrorist bomb attack on a NATO military base in 1993. His conviction was based exclusively on statements made before the trial by three “repented” co-accused, the applicant not having been allowed to examine these statements or to have them examined (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3d).

Individual measures: Given the circumstances of this case, the question of the reopening of the domestic proceedings was raised. Draft legislation aimed at introducing this possibility in Italian law has been before the Parliament at least since 1998 and a new draft bill (No. 1447/C) was introduced in July 2001. This new text, however, like the previous ones, would allow for such a re-examination only in case of violation of Article 6§3 of the Convention and would not apply to cases decided, like this one, by the Committee of Ministers (cf. Recommendation No. R (2000) 2). On 22 March 2001 the Director General of human rights addressed a letter to the Italian authorities drawing attention to the shortcomings in the proposed text. Details of the time-frame envisaged for the adoption of this draft law have also been requested. At the 783^rd meeting (February 2002), the Deputies adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)30, encouraging the Italian authorities to ensure the rapid adoption of new legislation in conformity with the principles in the Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 and decided to resume consideration of the matter once new legislation had been adopted or, at the latest, at the present meeting.

General measures: Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as modified in November 1999, has given Constitutional rank to a number of requirements contained in Article 6 of the Convention. It is thus for example no longer possible to convict somebody on the basis of statements made by persons who have deliberately refused to be cross-examined by the respondent party. In November 2000, the Italian authorities informed the Committee that a draft law (No. 4383/S) implementing this new constitutional provision and amending inter alia Article 513 of the Code of criminal procedure (which allowed courts to use pre-trial statements made without respecting the adversarial principle) was before the Parliament. As regards pending proceedings, Law No. 35 of 25 February 2000 provides that statements that have not been questioned by the accused person can only be used against him/her in the debate as long as they are corroborated by other evidence. The Italian authorities have been invited to keep the Committee informed of the progress made in the adoption of a new law amending Article 513 of the code of criminal procedure in conformity with the Convention.

H32-1036 26774 A.D. [45]

H46-1037 37119 N.F., judgment of 02/08/2001, final on 12/12/2001[46]

The case notably concerns an unlawful interference with the freedom of association of the applicant, a judge, on account of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him in 1994 because of his affiliation to a Masonic association. The Court considered that the sanction was not “foreseeable” or “prescribed by the law” because the provisions at its basis (namely, Article 18 of Royal Decree No. 511 of 31/05/1946 combined with a 1990 directive of the Supreme Judicial Board) were not clear enough (violation of Article 11).

A new directive, clearly establishing the incompatibility of membership of Masonic associations with the exercise of judicial functions was issued in 1993 (when the procedure against the applicant had already started). The applicant indicated his wish that the disciplinary proceedings be reviewed and drew attention to Article 37§6 of the 1946 Decree, which may allow for such a revision (see §42 of the judgment).

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: Information is expected on the follow-up given by the Supreme Judicial Board (C.S.M.) to the applicant’s request for revision of the impugned disciplinary procedure.

General measures: the Italian authorities indicated that the judgment would be published in “Quaderni”, the legal review of the C.S.M..

H32-1038 26426 S.B.F. S.p.a. [47]

H46-1039 41879 Saggio, judgment of 25/10/2001, final on 25/01/2002

The case concerns in particular the fact that no effective remedy was available to the applicant in order to claim the payment of back pay from a company placed under compulsory administration or to contest the action of the liquidator because, at that time, any judicial action was only possible after the list of debts had been established (violation of Article 13). The new provisions, entered into force in August 1999 (Law-Decree No. 270/99), now allow any creditor to contest the actions of a liquidator before the domestic courts. In the case at issue, however, the applicant cannot recover his sums as long as the compulsory administration proceedings, pending since 1995, are not finished.

Individual measures: the Italian authorities have been invited to take all appropriate measures in order to accelerate the pending domestic proceedings.

General measures: the publication of the judgment of the European Court has been requested.

- 2 cases against Ireland

H46-1040 36887 Quinn, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1041 34720 Heaney & McGuinness, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

These cases concern in particular the failure to respect the applicants’ right to remain silent and not to incriminate themselves (violation of Article 6§1) and the consequent breach of the presumption of their innocence (violation of Article 6§2). The applicants, remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed terrorist acts, were initially informed by the police that they had the right to remain silent. However, charges subsequently laid against them included that of refusing to answer questions under the terms of Article 52 of the 1939 Offences against the State Act. In the subsequent criminal proceedings, they were found not guilty of the substantive charges but convicted and sentenced (June 1991 in the Heaney & MacGuinness case, and May 1997 in the Quinn case) to six months’ imprisonment for having refused to answer questions while on remand, under the terms of the above-mentioned Article 52.

Individual measures: the Secretariat has requested information on any individual measure envisaged e.g. the deletion of the conviction from the criminal records or, at least, the annotation of the records with the conclusion of the judgment of the European Court.

The applicant in the Quinn case has brought proceedings, which are pending before the High Court, seeking, inter alia, to have his conviction quashed. As regards the Heaney & McGuinness case, the Irish authorities have informed the Committee that the applicants have finally not pursued their appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Information as to the outcome of the proceedings at the domestic level has been requested.

General measures: the Irish authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that under the Good Friday Peace Agreement of 10 April 1998, reforms of the Offences against the State Act 1939 are envisaged. In this respect the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has, with Government approval, established a committee to examine all aspects of the 1939 Acts and to report to the Minister with recommendations for reform. This process is presently under way and information in written form will be sent to the Secretariat in this respect. Finally, the judgments of the European Court are now accessible on the Irish Courts Service website (www.courts.ie) and are also available in legal libraries.

Sub-section 4.2

- 1 case against Liechtenstein

H46-1042 28396 Wille, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

The applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression on the grounds that the Head of State of Liechtenstein, His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II, informed him, in a letter of 27 February 1995, that he would not appoint him to public office on account of certain constitutional views the applicant had expressed (violation of Article 10). He further complained that he had had no remedy to defend his reputation and to seek protection of his personal rights (violation of Article 13).

General measures: The Representative of Liechtenstein has informed the Committee of Ministers that his authorities are presently considering which measures should be adopted in the light of the judgment of the European Court, in particular those concerning the violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court’s judgment has been published in German in the Liechtensteinische Juristen-Zeitung, December 2000 edition.

- 3 cases against Lithuania

H46-1043 37975 Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01[48]

H46-1044 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01[49]

H46-1045 44558 Valasinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01[50]

- 1 case against Moldova

*H46-1049 45701 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia & others, judgment of 13/12/01,

final on 27/03/02

Addendum 4

The case concerns the failure of the Government to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The Court concluded that this non-recognition constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion and that this interference, although pursuing a legitimate aim, was not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus not justified under the Convention (violation of Article 9). The Court also concluded that the applicants did not enjoy an effective remedy in respect of their claims at domestic level (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: On 31 July 2002, the Government's agent indicated to the Secretariat that the competent authorities had recognised the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia (recognition certificate No.1651 of 30 July 2002) in accordance with the Moldovan law on Religious Denominations, as amended by the Law No.1220-XV of 12 July 2002 (see below).

This recognition would appear to erase the consequences of the violation of the Convention in the present case, as regards in particular the legal personality of the Church and, consequently, its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.

At the 806^th meeting (September 2002), the Representative of Moldova stated that the Church would be able – like other religious communities – to participate in the procedures defined by a Governmental decision of 10 June 2002 (this decision appears in Addendum 4) with a view to recognition of its property. Confirmation in this respect has been requested in writing. Subsequently, the applicants have contacted the Secretariat indicating certain problems in connection with their property claims.

General measures: The Moldovan authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the original version of the judgment and its official translation into Moldovan were published on 9 July 2002 in the Official Journal of Moldova (Monitorul Oficial, n°100).

The Moldovan authorities also indicated that the Moldovan legislation on religious denominations was amended by Law n°1220-XV which entered into force on 12 July 2002. The relevant provisions (articles 9, 14, 49 and 52) of the Law, as amended, appear in Addendum 4.

Sub-section 4.2

The new provisions (Article 14) provide among other things that religious denominations are free to organise themselves and can function after depositing a declaration and their statutes with the competent authority, which will register the denomination in question in the State Register of Religious Denominations within 30 days following the deposit. Such recognition can be declared void though judicial proceedings in case of violation of the conditions provided for in Article 9 (§3). The latter prohibits religious denominations from conducting activities which undermine the independence, sovereignty, integrity and security of the Republic of Moldova, as well as the Constitution and the legislation in force, or to undertake actions connected with political activities.

Article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been amended so as to allow the reopening of domestic civil proceedings following violations of the Convention found by the European Court. The Moldovan authorities moreover recalled that a similar provision (Article 369/2, 1i) has been in existence since June 2000 in the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Addendum 4).

Following the adoption of the new law, the attention of the Moldovan authorities was drawn to the fact that the requirement of proportionality embodied in the Convention did not appear to be included in articles 9§3 and 14 which set out the conditions under which the Moldovan authorities can cancel the recognition of a religion. It was furthermore noted that the new law was not absolutely clear and detailed with regard to the right of a religious community to take judicial proceedings against the authorities' decision to cancel the recognition of this religion. This lack of clarity could prejudice the effective judicial control required by Article 13 and, consequently, the effective prevention of new violations similar to those found in the present case. This analysis was shared by the independent experts who were mandated, upon the request of the Moldovan authorities and within the framework of the Targeted Co-operation Programme to assist in the implementation of commitments, to assess the compatibility of the new Law on Religious Denominations (as amended) with Council of Europe standards, notably the ECHR.

During the consideration of this case at the 806^th meeting, the Representative of Moldova indicated that, following the aforementioned expertise, the Minister of Justice had set up a working party to draw up an entirely new version of the law which would remedy the aforementioned problems.

Restricted information: The debate at the 806^th meeting led the Chairman to make the following summing‑up:

“At this stage we might note that the following measures have been or are to be taken. Firstly, the matter of payment of just satisfaction as awarded by the European Court has been settled, and good progress has been made on the specific individual measures. The applicant church has been recognised, and according to the clarifications secured it can now claim property rights in accordance with the procedure established by the Government in June 2002. The confirmation and the clarifications on this matter will be forwarded to the Secretariat in writing. Moreover, positive clarifications have been supplied on the allegations of arrests of and coercive measures against priests of the applicant church. Lastly, as regards general measures, we have been informed that new legislation has been adopted on religions and that the procedure has been initiated for drafting a new bill on the subject. Concern has been expressed that the new provisions should clearly reflect the proportionality requirement vis-à-vis any restriction of religious liberty and the right of the various religions to an effective remedy. In this reform the authorities will be taking account of the expert opinions that have been drawn up. I therefore propose that we consider the progress made in adopting these measures at the next Human Rights meeting in October.

- 2 cases against the Netherlands

H46-1046 37328 A.B., judgment of 29/01/02, final on 29/04/02

The case concerns control of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights and with his lawyer by prison authorities of the Netherlands Antilles in 1997-1998, in the European Court’s opinion without necessity or legitimate aim (violation of Article 8). The case also concerns the fact that the applicant had no means at his disposal of appealing against the conditions in which he was detained or the interference with his correspondence (violation of Article 13).

General measures: A copy in English or French of the new National Ordinance on Prisons in the Netherlands Antilles, which entered into force on 13 August 1999, has been requested. Furthermore, information on any development as to the adoption of the new Prison Regulations and Internal Prison Rules, and in particular as to whether an effective remedy will be introduced, has been requested. Publication of the judgment and dissemination to the prison authorities concerned still to be confirmed.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1047 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, notably before the Court of Appeal of The Hague which sentenced him in September 1993 to a year’s imprisonment, using as evidence a statement taken from an anonymous witness (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3d).

The case presents similarities to the case Van Mechelen & others (judgment of 23/04/1997) against the Netherlands (Resolution DH(99)124).

Individual measures: Information has been requested on the latest situation of the applicant, and in particular on whether he is still suffering the consequences of the conviction imposed following an unfair trial.

General measures: At the 792^nd meeting it was indicated that the publication of the judgment would be useful. Information on this is awaited.

- 6 cases against Poland

H46-1050 33492 Jabłonski, judgment of 21/12/00[51]

H46-1051 34097 Kreps, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01[52]

H46-1052 33079 Szeloch, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01[53]

H46-1053 25792 Trzaska, judgment of 11/07/00[54]

H46-1054 27504 Ilowiecki, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02[55]

H46-1055 34049 Zwierzynski, judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01[56]

- 2 cases against Portugal

H54-1056 15777 Matos & Silva et 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

Addendum 4

The case concerns the excessive length of several expropriation proceedings and the ensuing interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants’ property (violation of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: By letter of 29 May 2001, the Committee of Ministers was informed that the Supreme Administrative Court had concluded the appeal procedure by a judgment of 31 May 2000, which confirmed the applicants’ ownership of the property in question. An appeal was lodged before the Plenary Assembly of the Supreme Administrative Court, which confirmed its judgment on 21 February 2001. The decision became final on 7 March 2001. Four other sets of proceedings are still pending concerning in particular the compensation to be granted following the expropriation. Information has been requested in this respect. The necessity to put an end to the different expropriation proceedings which are still pending (for more than 17 years) has been raised with a view to bring to an end the violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1.

General measures: In order to draw the attention of the Portuguese courts to the problem that the existing procedure could cause under specific circumstances, the publication of the judgment of the European Court has been requested.

Restricted information: the applicants’ lawyer addressed a letter (dated 22 April 2002) to the Secretariat complaining that to date, although a judicial decision has confirmed the applicant’s ownership of the property in question, no compensation has been received by the applicants for the expropriation of their property.

A copy of the letter is enclosed in Addendum 4.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1057 33290 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life as well as discrimination based on sexual preference on account of the decision by the Lisbon Appeal Court of 9 January 1996 conferring on his ex-wife parental authority in respect of his daughter, M., this decision being based solely on his homosexuality (violation of Article 8 combined with Article 14).

Individual measures: information has been requested as to whether the proceedings are still pending, and if so, whether any interim measures have been taken to give effect to the European Court’ judgment awaiting the outcome of the pending appeal proceedings introduced against the above-mentioned decision of the Lisbon Appeal Court. It has been recalled that, since parental authority is at stake, special diligence is required.

The Portuguese authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the case is still pending before the domestic courts, inter alia, for procedural reasons not attributable to the Portuguese authorities.

General measures: The necessary change of domestic practice is presumed to take place as a result of the direct effect accorded by Portuguese Court to the European Convention of Human Rights and to the judgments of the European court. The publication of the judgment of the European Court has been requested.

- 4 cases against Romania

H46-1058 28871 Constantinescu, judgment of 27/06/00[57]

H46-1059 28341 Rotaru, judgment of 04/05/00[58]

H46-1060 28114 Dalban, judgment of 28/09/99 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for criminal libel in 1994 for having published articles in which he exposed a series of frauds allegedly committed by a senior official and a member of parliament. The Court found a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of the fact that the Romanian courts had not allowed the applicant to prove the truth of his allegations, although these concerned a matter of serious public concern and did not touch upon the private life of the plaintiffs (violation of Article 10).

General measures: Since December 1999, the attention of the Romanian authorities has been drawn to the problems posed not least by Section 206 of the Criminal Code regarding freedom of expression, and the question was raised of the state of advancement of reforms envisaged in this field. The Delegation of Romania indicated at first that a broad reform of the Criminal Code, including Section 206, was under way and promised in June 2001 that the relevant draft legislation would be transmitted to the Secretariat, who has however not received them yet. Subsequently, in May 2002, certain provisions of the Criminal Code concerning defamation were modified by emergency order, subject to Parliamentary ratification. Details are expected for the present meeting on the progress of this procedure as well as on the scope of the amendments. Information is also awaited about further reforms under way in order to bring Romanian law on defamation into conformity with the case-law of the European Court.

Furthermore, the Delegation has informed the Secretariat that the Dalban judgment had been translated and sent out to Presidents of Courts of Appeal and that the case had been discussed in 1999 and 2000 at a seminar organised in by the Romanian Judges’ Association, a meeting of the Presidents of Courts of Appeal and a meeting of the Romanian Journalists’ Association.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1061 31679 Ignaccolo-Zenide, judgment of 25/01/00

Following the applicant’s divorce, a French court ruled, in a judgment which subsequently became final, that her two children were to live with her. Her former husband refused to return them to the applicant and after changing addresses several times he went to live in Romania. On 14 December 1994 the Bucharest Court of First Instance issued an injunction requiring the children to be returned to the applicant. However, her efforts to have the injunction enforced proved unsuccessful. The European Court found that the Romanian authorities had failed to take adequate and sufficient steps to comply with the applicant’s right to the return of her children and had thus infringed her right to respect for her family life (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: In response to requests for information on measures which would allow the applicant to renew contacts with her youngest daughter, who was still a minor at the time, the Romanian Delegation indicated that the Ministry of Justice, in its capacity of Central Authority for the purposes of the 1980 Hague Convention, engaged in June 2000 two set of proceedings, of which one was under an emergency procedure, to secure a right of access. A right of access granted on 13 September 2000 under the urgency procedure was eventually annulled in January 2001 on appeal, as the Ministry was deemed to lack locus standi since the daughter had turned 16 on 29 September 2000. The right granted had been suspended awaiting the appeal decision. The main application was rejected by the court of first instance in April 2001 on the same grounds. By a decision of November 2001, the Court of Appeal reversed that verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. Expert opinions have been requested from the social services. The acceleration of the proceedings has been requested. Updated information on the developments is expected. It should be noted that the applicant’s younger daughter has reached 18 on 29 September 2002. The applicant has indicated that she had in addition called upon the French Ministry of Justice, which has contacted the Romanian authorities to try a “family mediation”. The Romanian authorities informed the French authorities in response that they had made contact with the applicant’s daughter who is still a minor, to try mediation. A meeting with the daughter, in the presence of her father, was organized by the Romanian authorities. The daughter confirmed her refusal to see the mother. The applicant was requested on 05/09/02 by the Bucharest Court to a hearing to be held on 16/12/02 in view of obtaining a right of access to her daughter (who has now come of age).

General measures: At the 749^th meeting, the Delegation declared that a “package” of bills, including one relevant to this case, had been withdrawn for examination by the new government. They will probably be presented for adoption later on. At the 764^th meeting, the Delegation indicated that the legislation on custody was being modified so as to avoid findings of new violations of this kind. Further information with regard to these modifications is expected. The judgment of the European Court has been published and the authorities have indicated that the judgment had been disseminated (together with a circular underlining the provisions of the Hague Convention) to civil courts, competent ministries and the social services. Details of these measures are awaited. Recently, following the failure of the Romanian courts to give real effect to the judgment of the European Court, attention has been drawn to the necessity of a careful review of the system for enforcing custody and visiting rights, in particular when these result from the application of the Hague Convention.

- 2 cases against San Marino

H46-1062 24954+ Tierce & others, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-1063 35396 Stefanelli, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

These cases concern the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings, held between 1993 and 1996, which resulted in the applicants’ conviction respectively to three years’ imprisonment in the case of Ms Stefanelli and one year’s imprisonment, suspended, as regards Mr Tierce. The Court found that Article 6§1 had been violated in that the defendants, according to San Marino law, could not be heard personally by the appeal judge in a public hearing. In addition, in the case of Tierce and others, the Court found that, in respect of the first applicant, Article 6§1 had been violated because the double functions – as investigating and trial judge – of the Commissario della Legge and the extent of his/her investigating powers could objectively cast doubts on his/her impartiality.

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: the applicants have already served their sentences and a mention of the judgments of the European Court has been added to their criminal records. Further information has been requested about other consequences for the applicants of the impugned proceedings (such as restrictions and seizure of property). More generally, since the 716^th meeting (July 2000), the San Marino authorities’ attention has been drawn to the necessity of introducing into domestic law, in conformity with Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. R (2000)2, possibilities of reopening proceedings found to be in breach of the Convention. At present, neither the national statute law nor the case-law seems to allow such a possibility, as confirmed in a judicial decision of 19/06/2001, rejecting a request for revision of the criminal convictions against Mr Tierce introduced following the Strasbourg judgment (a similar request on behalf of Ms Stefanelli is still pending before the domestic courts). According to the San Marino Court, the reopening of proceedings found to be in breach of the Convention could only be introduced by legislation.

General measures: the possibility for the Commissario della Legge to hold double functions was abrogated by Act No. 83 of 1992 on judicial organisation. These provisions are however applicable only until a new code of criminal procedure enters into force and the draft code currently before Parliament does not clearly separate the inquiry and judicial functions.

As regards the participation of accused person in appeal proceedings, San Marino law does not yet allow this. A constitutional appeal aimed at having the relevant provisions declared unconstitutional was introduced in 2001, on the basis of the findings of the European Court in these cases, and is currently pending. The provisions of the draft code of criminal procedure seem to satisfy the Convention requirements in this respect, and the question was raised as to how soon it could be adopted and enter into force.

Both judgments of the European Court were made public by displaying their full text in Italian, French and English on the doors of the Public Palace (ad valvas palatii) on 19 July 2000 (Stefanelli) and on 6 October 2000 (Tierce and others).

- 2 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-1005 48672 Nemec & others, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-1006 40058 Gajdúšek, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (more than 9 years and 7 months in each case). In the first case, the proceedings were still pending when the Court delivered its judgment and in the second case, the proceedings ended in 2001 but it is not clear if the Regional Court’s decision has become final (violation of Article 6§1).

The cases present similarities to those of Preložník, closed by Resolution ResDH(99)551 following the adoption of general measures and Jóri (judgment of 09/11/2000), which appears in Section 6 following additional measures already adopted or under way.

Individual measures: Information about the status of the domestic proceedings has been requested.

General measures: The first judgment was published in the “Justičná Revue” N° 1/2002 and sent to the court directly concerned. The Government has informed the Directorate General of Human Rights of a proposal by the Minister of Justice to amend the Judges and Lay Judges Act N° 385/2000 as regards their liability. Further information on this issue is awaited.

- 4 cases against Switzerland

H54-1064 20919 E.L., R.L. & O.-L., judgment of 29/08/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)111

H54-1065 19958 A.P., M.P. & T.P., judgment of 29/08/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)110

These cases concern the fact that the applicants, as heirs and irrespective of any personal guilt, were convicted of offences allegedly committed by the testator, in breach of the presumption of innocence, in that “inheritance of the guilt of the dead is not compatible with the standards of criminal justice in a society governed by the rule of law” (violation of Article 6§2).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: Interim Resolutions setting out the measures already taken by the Swiss authorities (publication, courts taking account of the Court’s judgment…) as well as ongoing measures, were adopted in these two cases. At the 633^rd meeting, the Swiss Delegation specified that the impugned provisions of the relevant legislation would be amended within the framework of a general reform. This would take a certain time, and the Committee of Ministers therefore decided to examine these cases, either when the reforms had been completed, or at the latest at the first meeting of 2001. At the 775^th meeting, the Delegation confirmed that the process of consulting the cantons had ended and that the draft was before Parliament.

H46-1066 26899 H.B., judgment of 05/04/01, final on 05/07/01

This case concerns the role of the examining magistrate who ordered the applicant’s arrest and provisional detention, bearing in mind the possibility that this same magistrate could intervene on the prosecution side in subsequent criminal proceedings, if the case were to be referred to the cantonal criminal court. This being so, the Court considered that the applicant was not brought before an “officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” (violation of Article 5§3).

General measures: The judgment has been disseminated, notably to the Département de la justice et des constructions du Canton de Soleure and to the Federal Court. It was published in the periodical Jurisprudence des autorités administratives de la Confédération. The Swiss authorities have adopted a provisional measure, according to which the examining judge will no longer order provisional detention of suspects in proceedings that he or she is conducting, another judge deciding. Furthermore, a reform which would institute a tribunal cantonal de la détention is being examined and could enter into force in 2004.

H46-1067 31827 J.B., judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01

This case concerns the fact that in proceedings to determine the taxes owed by the applicant, the Swiss authorities tried to compel him to submit documents giving information concerning his income in view of the assessment of his taxes, fining him on four occasions because he did not respond. These attempts to compel the applicant can be analysed as infringing his right not to incriminate himself, given that he could not exclude that any additional income from untaxed sources which transpired from these documents could have constituted the offence of tax evasion, in which case he would be liable to a fine (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The Swiss Delegation has confirmed the dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the relevant authorities and of its publication. Information on measures taken or to be taken in order to avoid findings of new violations of this kind are awaited. The Delegation has indicated that the examination of all the judgments implications will need some time.

- 46 cases against Turkey

H46-1068 34382 Denmark against Turkey, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement[59]

H46-1069 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00

This case concerns the decision to deport the applicant to Iran, where, she maintains, she runs the risk of being stoned to death or flogged, these being the penalties prescribed by Iranian law as punishment for adultery. She lodged an asylum application which was rejected, on the grounds that it had been submitted out of the 5-day time-limit as from her arrival in Turkey. She was later granted refugee status by the UNHCR but her appeals against the deportation order and to obtain a stay of execution were nevertheless rejected by the Administrative Court. The European Court holds that there would be a real risk of the applicant being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 if she were to be deported (violation of Article 3 if the decision to deport the applicant to Iran were implemented). Her failure to comply with the 5-day time-limit denied her any scrutiny of the factual basis of her fears: the Administrative Court limited itself to the issue of the formal legality of the deportation order. There was no assessment by the domestic authorities of the risk claimed by the applicant and the refusal to consider her asylum request was not open to appeal. Given the irreversible

Sub-section 4.2

nature of the harm that might occur, the notion of an effective remedy requires independent and rigorous scrutiny and the possibility of suspending the implementation of the measure impugned, which was not the case (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The Turkish Delegation confirmed that the applicant had been granted a residence permit which would be extended until she received a visa for a third country, and that she had the possibility of applying for Turkish nationality. The Delegation also mentioned that in the case of a refusal of her asylum request, she may introduce an appeal before the Council of State. By a letter dated 05/03/02, the Delegation has informed the Secretariat that the applicant has left for Canada.

General measures: The translation and publication of the judgment has been made, but a circular for the attention of the administrative authorities and courts is still awaited.

The Delegation transmitted to the Secretariat the regulations on asylum seekers, as modified in 1998 (the five-day period in which to lodge an appeal has been increased to ten days). Details of appeals before administrative courts of first degree and before the Council of State, in order to check the guarantees offered by the proceedings are awaited (do these appeals have suspensive effect?) . Information the standard used to evaluate whether or not a person should be expelled would be interesting, Article 3 of Convention having to be taken into account.

- Cases concerning excessive length of criminal proceedings

H46-1070 31880 Adıyaman, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1071 32964 Akçam, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1072 33362 Akyazı, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1073 29280 Başpınar, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-844 29913 Binbir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1074 26480 Bürkev, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-845 29912 Çilengir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-846 29699 Dinleten, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1075 31891 Genç, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1076 39428 Inan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1077 28291 Kanbur, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1078 32990 Karademir, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1079 32987 Keskin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1082 29360+ Ketenoğlu Gülsen & Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01,

final on 25/12/01

H46-850 29700 Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-853 29701 Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1080 31960 Pekdaş, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1083 31961 Sahin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-855 29702 Sarıtaç, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-858 29911 Uygur, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1081 31834 Yagiz Hasan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-861 29703 Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

These cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings in particular before the Ankara and Istanbul Martial Law Courts whose jurisdiction was abolished by the Law of 27 December 1993 and partly before the ordinary criminal courts (violations of Article 6§1).

These cases present similarities to the cases in Can and others (judgments of 05/12/2000) in which the Secretariat is preparing draft resolutions on the basis of the general measures adopted by the Turkish authorities.

Individual measures: Information is awaited on the state of pending proceedings.

Sub-section 4.2

General Measures: The Turkish Delegation indicated that the Adıyaman, Akyazı, Bürkev and Başpınar judgments were translated and published in the bulletins of the Ministry of Justice and disseminated to all courts and prosecutors. At the 792^nd meeting it was indicated that publication and dissemination of the judgment in the Şahiner case (judgment of 25/09/2001), which is referred to by the Court as a precedent for all the above cases, would be useful. The Government was also asked to provide information about other possible measures envisaged.

- Cases concerning political parties

H46-859 22723+ Yazar, Karataş, Aksoy & the People’s Labour Party (HEP), judgment of

09/04/02[60]

H46-1084 23885 Özdep (Freedom and Democracy Party), judgment of 08/12/99

H54-1085 19392 United Communist Party of Turkey, judgment of 30/01/98

H54-1086 21237 Socialist Party & others, judgment of 25/05/98- Interim Resolutions DH(99)245 & 529 (CM/Inf(98)48)

Addendum 4

The cases concern the dissolution of the above-mentioned political parties by the Constitutional Court in 1991, 1992 and 1993, respectively. The United Communist Party and the ÖZDEP party were dissolved shortly after their creation, on the mere basis of their programmes. The Socialist Party was dissolved on account of certain statements made by its chairman, Mr Perinçek. The reasons advanced by the Constitutional Court covered the undermining of the territorial integrity and the unity of the nation by references to the Kurdish people or to Kurdish self-determination (breaches of the Constitution and of various Articles in the Law on Political Parties (LPP). Among those cited by the prosecutor mention may be made of Articles 78, 81 and 101 b) of the LPP. The HEP was dissolved under similar circumstances. HEP was dissolved in similar circumstances. In the United Communist Party case an additional ground was the title “communist”, banned in Article 96 (3) of the LPP. In the ÖZDEP case an additional ground was a perceived aim to abolish the secular nature of the State in violation of Article 89 of the LPP.

The cases also concern the ensuing banning for life of the leaders of the parties from holding similar offices in any other political party.

In all the cases, the Court found violations of the right to freedom of association (Article 11).

The Socialist Party case also concerns the criminal conviction of Mr Perinçek, subsequent to the Court’s judgment, on account of the same statements as led to the party’s dissolution.

General measures: The judgments have been published in Turkish in the Official Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice.

The change of the Constitution in 1995 changed the permanent ban on political activities for members of dissolved parties to a 5-year ban and made it applicable only to party leaders.

The necessity of a further reform of the LPP has been pointed out since May 1998. Such a reform should take away the automatic ban of a party on the mere ground that its title contains the word "communist" and abrogate the possibility of dissolving parties solely on the basis of non-violent political speech or programmes which respect the rules of democracy. The possibility to ensure the compatibility of Turkish law with the Convention through a change of case-law was also noted (see notably CM/Inf(98)48).

Further amendments to the Constitution of relevance for the execution of the above mentioned judgments, entered inot force on 17 October 2001. These amendments have notably introduced a general principle of proportionality and the possibility to resort to less severe sanctions than dissolution of the party in case of violations of the authorized limits of political action, limits which remain, however, unchanged in Article 68 of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of amendments to the LPP have been adopted on 26 March 2002 in order to ensure that the LPP is in conformity with the Constitution.

During the examination of these different amendments in the course of the 792^nd meeting (April 2002), the improvements brought about were noted, but certain hesitations were expressed in view of the absence of any change of several key provisions. Certain more detailed information on positions adopted may be found in Addendum 4. Following this exchange of views, the Deputies agreed to resume consideration of theses cases at their 810^th meeting (October 2002) in order to examine any clarifications which might have been made in the meantime through the case-law of Turkish courts, in particular by the Constitutional Court.

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: The bans on political activities imposed on the applicants following the dissolution of the Parties have all been lifted. The Committee of Ministers found that under former Article 53 (today Article 46, §1) of the Convention, Turkey was under an obligation to erase the consequences of Mr Perinçek’s criminal conviction (see Interim Resolutions DH(99)245 and 529). Mr Perinçek was conditionally released after having served ¾ of his 14-month prison sentence and, following the application of amnesty legislation, he once again enjoys the civil and political rights which he lost as a result of his conviction, although on the condition that he does not “commit a further crime”. He has lodged a new complaint with the Court on account of this situation (Application No. 46669/99). This complaint has been declared admissible by the Court on 26 February 2002. The Committee is awaiting the outcome of these proceedings.

- 18 cases against Turkey concerning freedom of expression

(CM/Inf(2000)28-rev. 3, CM/Inf(2001)7, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106)

Addendum 4

H46-971 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00[61]

H32-979 25658 AslantaşSedat - Interim Resolution DH(99)560 of 08/10/99 [62]

H46-1087 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-1088 23462 Arslan, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1089 23536+ Başkaya & Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1090 23556 Ceylan, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1091 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00

H46-1092 25067+ Erdoğdu & Ince, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1093 24919 Gerger, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1094 22678 Inçal, judgment of 09/06/98

H46-1095 23168 Karataş, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1096 24246 Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1097 22479 Öztürk, judgment of 28/09/99

H46-1098 23500 Polat (E.P.), judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1099 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00

H46-1100 24122 Sürek II, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1101 24762 Sürek IV, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1102 23927+ Sürek & Özdemir, judgment of 08/07/99

These cases all relate to unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular because of their conviction by State Security Courts following the publication of articles and books or the preparation of messages addressed to a public audience. 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 their positive obligation to protect the applicant newspaper in the exercise of its freedom of expression (violation of Article 10)[63].

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: since June 1998 it has in particular been repeatedly stressed in the Committee that the applicants’ convictions found to be contrary to Article 10 must be erased from the applicants’ criminal records and that the applicants’ civil and political rights, to the extent that they have been restricted as a result of the convictions, must be restored. The Turkish authorities indicated that this result could be achieved by introducing in the code of criminal procedure the possibility of reopening proceedings found to be contrary to the Convention. Although this amendment was announced in September 1999 and the Committee of Ministers had constantly stressed its urgency, in March 2001 the Turkish authorities indicated that its adoption was only scheduled for 2003-2004[64]. Pending this reform, on 23 July 2001, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution DH(2001)106 (appended to Addendum 4), which, among other things, “urges the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to take ad hoc measures allowing the consequences of the applicants’ convictions contrary to the Convention in the above mentioned cases to be rapidly and fully erased”. Updated information on the current situation of the applicants and on the concrete follow-up given to Interim Resolution (2001)106 as well as on the possible implications of the amendment of Article 87 of the Constitution (as regards pardons and amnesties) have been requested. By letter of 27/05/2002, the Turkish authorities indicated that six applicants (Mr M.S. Okçuoğlu, Mr U. Erdoğdu, Mr S. Ince, Ms P. Şener, Mr K.T. Sürek, Mr Y. Özdemir) were no longer subject to restrictions of their rights and that the remaining applicants could avail themselves of the remedies normally provided for by Turkish law, no ad hoc measure having been taken by the authorities. On 3/08/2002, the Turkish Parliament adopted provisions allowing for the reopening of civil and criminal proceedings found to be contrary to the Convention (Act No. 4709). These provisions however do not apply to these cases, as their scope is limited to European Court judgments on applications brought after 9/08/2003.

General measures: the question has been raised, since 1998, of the necessity to adapt Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention in order to avoid further violations similar to those found (see CM/Inf(2000)28-rev. 3 for details). As a preliminary measure, the most important judgments have been published in Turkish and some of them can be accessed through the Ministry of Justice website (http://www.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/aihmk.htm). Furthermore, at the 741^st meeting (February 2001), the Representative of Turkey indicated that an information note would be sent to judges and public prosecutors in order to raise their awareness of the requirements of the Convention. A copy of this note has been requested. Additional information on a training programme aimed at raising the awareness of the judiciary of the requirements of the Convention was communicated in April 2001. In March 2001, the Turkish authorities presented the National Programme containing information on the reforms planned for the “short term” and the “medium term” (respectively 2002 and 2003-2004). Subsequently, on 3 October 2001, a number of constitutional amendments, concerning inter alia the provisions on freedom of expression and information, were adopted and are directly applicable. Since then, three packages of laws have been adopted respectively on 6 February 2002, 26 March 2002 and 3 August 2002, amending notably Articles 159 and 312 of the Criminal Code, Articles 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 3713), the Press Act (No. 5680), the Political Parties Act (No. 2820) and the Broadcasting Act (No. 3984). Although these amendments are aimed at generally improving the situation of freedom of expression (in some cases, maximum penalties are lowered and the scope of the provisions restricted), they do not seem to solve all the problems raised by the Court’s judgments. Additional information has accordingly been requested on a number of points, including: the way Turkish Courts apply the criterion of “incitement to violence” after the legislative reforms; the introduction of a general criterion of truth and public interest; the review of minimum penalties in crimes related to freedom of expression; the amendment or abrogation to Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism law; the adoption of specific measures aimed at ensuring the protection of freedom of expression. Finally, at the 792nd meeting, the Turkish authorities were invited to clarify the expected impact of the reforms on freedom of expression in Turkey.

Sub-section 4.2

- 10 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-1104 33394 Price, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

The case concerns degrading treatment suffered by the applicant, a four-limb-deficient thalidomide victim dependent on a wheelchair, during her custody and imprisonment due to detention conditions which were inadequate in view of the applicant's special needs (violation of Article 3).

General measures: At the 775^th meeting (December 2001), it was indicated that publication and wide dissemination of the judgment by circular to domestic courts and prison authorities would be useful. Confirmation is awaited in this respect. The Government was also asked to provide information about other measures envisaged to satisfy the needs of disabled persons in detention.

H46-1106 27229 Keenan, judgment of 03/04/01

The case concerns in particular the inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicant’s son due to the conditions of his detention (violation of Article 3). The case also concerns the absence of effective remedies enabling the applicant’s son to contest the disciplinary sanctions to which he was subjected or available to the applicant herself, following her son’s suicide (violation of Article 13).

General measures: the United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee that they are presently considering which measures should be envisaged in order to avoid the repetition of the violation found. Among other measures, extensive changes to the Prison Service’s Discipline Manual might be introduced and the prison complaints procedures have since been the subject of a major review with new procedures to be phased in from late 2001 or early 2002. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the judgment has received widespread publication in legal journals. The Committee has asked whether, pending the adoption of any specific measures, a circular could be addressed to prison officers in order to draw their attention to the Keenan judgment. It has also asked to be kept informed of any developments in respect of the changes to be introduced in the Prison Service’s discipline manual. A copy of the reform of the procedures has been requested. Exact references as to

H46-1107 35765 A.D.T., judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life on account of his conviction for gross indecency in respect of homosexual acts between consenting adults which had taken place in private, at the applicant’s home (violation of Article 8). The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on 20 November 1996 and was conditionally discharged.

Individual measures: The United Kingdom authorities have informed the Secretariat that recourse to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for a case to be referred to an appeal court is in effect only possible where the Strasbourg Court has found the original domestic proceedings to have been procedurally flawed, which was not so in this case.

General measures: The Committee has been informed that the United Kingdom authorities, in particular the Sex Offences Unit of the Home Office, are currently considering what type of measures should be adopted in order to avoid similar violations to that found in the present case (notably amendments to the Sex Offences Act). Publication of the judgment has also been requested.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1108 28883 McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-1109 37715 Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-1110 24746 Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-1111 30054 Kelly & others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

These cases concern the death of applicants’ next-of-kin during police detention or security forces operations. In this respect, the Court mainly found the following shortcomings in the proceedings for investigating the use of lethal force by police officers/ security forces (violation of Article 2): lack of independence of the investigating police officers from the security forces/police officers involved in the events; lack of public scrutiny and information to the victims’ families concerning the reasons for decisions not to prosecute any soldier / police officer; the inquest procedure did not allow for any verdict or findings which could play an effective role in securing a prosecution in respect of any criminal offence which might have been disclosed; the soldiers / police officers who shot the deceased could not be required to attend the inquest as witnesses; the non-disclosure of witness statements prior to the witnesses’ appearance at the inquest prejudiced the ability of the applicants to participate in the inquest and contributed to long adjournments in the proceedings; the inquest proceedings did not commence promptly and were not pursued with reasonable expedition.

Just satisfaction: payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the four cases is still to be confirmed.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Representatives of the United Kingdom and the Secretariat have maintained various contacts in order to discuss the Government’s preliminary position in respect of the measures that need to be adopted.

Following the 798^th meeting (June 2002), the Secretariat addressed a letter to the United Kingdom authorities, summarising the information received so far and asking for further information as regards a number of outstanding issues.

The publication of the judgments of the European Court and dissemination to police officers / security officers and judicial authorities concerned are still to be confirmed. Copies of the judgments have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to all coroners in Northern Ireland.

By letter of 9 August 2002 addressed to the President of the Chair of Ministers, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (counsel in the Kelly and Shanaghan cases) have requested access, under Rule 5 of the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers in application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, to the information made available to the Committee by the United Kingdom authorities. By letter of 14 August 2002, the applicants’ lawyers in the McKerr and Jordan cases introduced a similar request.

Restricted information: On 25 September 2002, consultations took place between the Secretariat and representatives of the United Kingdom authorities regarding the information transmitted thus far. Following these consultations, the United Kingdom authorities intend submitting a new version of the document transmitted to Delegations on 6 September 2002, which should be available at the 810^th meeting (7 to 9 October 2002)

H46-1112 44787 P.G. & J.H., judgment of 25/09/2001, final on 25/12/2001

The case concerns a double interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, which was not “in accordance with the law”, since in 1995 there was no domestic law regulating the use of covert listening devices installed by the police, first at a flat (in order to record the conversations of the applicants who were suspected of conspiracy to rob) and, following their arrest, in their police cells (in order to obtain voice samples to compare with the tapes) (violations of Article 8). The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning the use of covert listening devices (violation of Article 13).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: As regards the first violation of Article 8, the case presents similarities with those of Govell and Khan (judgments of 18/05/98 and 12/05/00 respectively), which appear in Section 6, following the adoption of the Police Act 1997 and of the Regulation of Investigation Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Part II of the latter Act came into force on 25/09/00 and provides for the first time a statutory framework for the use of covert surveillance by a range of public authorities, including the police service. The installation of a covert listening device in residential premises is partly ruled by this Act (sections 26(3) and 32) and partly by the Police Act 1997. As regards the violation of Article 13, Part IV of RIPA provides for independent oversight of police powers by a Chief Surveillance Commissioner and establishes an independent Tribunal to consider complaints concerning the use of surveillance powers. As regards the violation due to the covert recording of the applicants’ voices in the police cells, which was found specifically in the present case, the Government indicated that it has been remedied by sections 26(2) and 28 of the RIPA. These provisions are being examined.

*H46-1113 37555 O’Hara, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

The case concerns the fact that the applicant (a suspected terrorist) was detained in 1985 for six days and thirteen hours before being finally released without charge (violation of Article 5§3). In addition, as his detention was in accordance with domestic law, no enforceable right to compensation existed in relation to his complaint under Article 5§3 (violation of Article 5§5).

The case presents similarities with that of Brogan and others (Resolution DH(90)23).

General measures: the publication and dissemination of the judgment to the Secretary of State and to all civil courts would be useful.

As regards the violation of Article 5§3, the Representative of the United Kingdom recalled that the derogation of 23/12/1988 according to Article 15 of the Convention was withdrawn on 26/02/2001. Furthermore, section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides that a person who has been arrested upon reasonable suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, can be detained for up 48 hours and thereafter, where a judicial authority extends the detention period, for up to a further 5 days. The judicial authority will extend detention only to the point strictly necessary for the completion of investigations and enquiries or to preserve relevant evidence in order to decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted. The person detained should be given a written notice of the application for such an extension and the opportunity to make oral or written representations and to be legally represented at the hearing.

As regards the violation of Article 5§5, the Government was requested to provide information concerning the exercise, under the domestic law, of an enforceable right to compensation for excessive length of detention. Information on this issue is awaited.

*H46-1114 39846 Brennan, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s defence rights due to the presence of a police officer during his first consultation with his solicitor in 1990, without any compelling reason for the imposition of this restriction. The applicant was thus deprived of effective legal advice (violation of Article 6§3c in conjunction with Article 6§1).

Individual measures: During the 792^nd meeting (April 2002), the Government was asked to provide information about the possibility of reopening the domestic proceedings, if requested by the applicant, under sections 9-12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. This information is awaited.

General measures: At the same meeting, it was indicated to the Government that the publication and wide dissemination of the judgment to police services would be useful. Information was also requested about the measures envisaged in order to ensure confidentiality during detainees’ communications with their defence counsel. This information is awaited.

SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 1 case against Italy

H46-1115 39221+ Scozzari & others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151, CM/Inf(2001)12 and CM/In(2002)20

Addendum 4

The case concerns two violations of Article 8 of the Convention related, on the one hand, to the continued placement, since 1997, of the two children of the first applicant (mother) in the “Forteto” community, after they had been taken into public care and, on the other hand, to the authorities’ failure to maintain the opportunities of the mother and her children to re-establish family bonds, through the organisation of regular contact visits. The Court notably considered the fact that certain “Forteto” leaders with serious previous convictions notably for ill-treatment and sexual abuse of handicapped people placed in the community (§§32-34) could still play an active role in bringing up the children (§§201-208); the fact that the implementation of the Youth Court’s decisions had been deflected from their intended purpose of allowing visits between the mother and the children to take place as a result of the attitude of the social services (§§178-179 & 213) and of some of the leaders of “Il Forteto” (§211), who had delayed or hindered the implementation of such decisions (§209) and exercised a mounting influence on the children aimed at distancing them from their mother (§210); the doubt about who really has effective care of the children (§211); the insufficient level of control on the social services and the “Forteto” (§§179-181 & §§212-216); the risk of long-term integration of the children into the “Forteto”, which – in the Court’s opinion - runs contrary to the objectives of a temporary placement and of the superior interest of the children (§§215-216).

Just satisfaction: The payment of the default interests due to Ms Scozzari’s lawyer and to the children has not been confirmed yet.

Individual measures: The temporary placement of the children in the “Forteto” community was confirmed by the Florence Youth Court, on 18 September 2000, until the end of the school-year 2000-2001 and then extended, on 17 July 2001, for a maximum (renewable) duration of three years. The first applicant has appealed against this decision and the proceedings are currently pending, the next hearing being scheduled for the 25 September 2002. Other proceedings, also concerning the placement of the children, are pending at first instance. These proceedings might allow the judicial authorities to assess the present situation of the children in the light of the elements which led the European Court to find that the rights of the mother and of her children had been violated (see above).

In fact, in spite of the adoption of two Interim resolutions by the Committee of Ministers respectively in May and October 2001 (ResDH (2001) 65 and ResDH (2001) 151), so far the judicial decisions confirming the continuation of the placement of the children in the “Forteto” have failed to consider these elements and to either take remedial actions (such as the transferral of the children elsewhere) or explain why they no longer constitute a risk that the violations found by the Court are continuing or might be repeated. A letter, recalling the results expected, both as regards individual and general measures, was addressed to the Italian authorities on 8 July 2002.

As regards the contacts between the mother and the children, the Youth Court found, in December 2000, that the social services were still continuing to delay and hamper the implementation of its decisions to organise such visits. Therefore, after three short visits in March-April 2001 (interrupted when Ms Scozzari moved to Belgium), on 17 July 2001 the Youth Court decided that a regular programme of visits should be set up, with the participation of an official of the social services, appointed among those having never previously intervened in the procedure. Following this decision, monthly visits have been taking place since December 2001, also thanks to the Belgian authorities’ undertaking to pay the travel expenses for Ms Scozzari and a qualified assistant. The question has been raised – both in the course of the discussions within the Committee of ministers and before the domestic courts – (see CM/Inf(2002)20) of whether such visits are organised in such a way to effectively allow a resumption of family relations, in conformity with the Youth Court’s decision and the Strasbourg Court’s judgment. In the framework of the pending appeal proceedings, the Appeal Court, on 8 February 2002, decided that an expert psychological report should be established on this issue. This report was presented on 31 July 2002 and the Appeal Court examined its conclusions on 25 September.

Sub-section 4.3

General measures: The Court’s judgment was translated and published in the legal review Rivista Internazionale dei Diritti dell’Uomo, No. 3/2000, p. 1015-1046 and, in May 2001, the Superior Judicial Council asked for the organisation of seminars, both at national and local level, in order to raise the awareness of magistrates of Youth Courts on the requirements of the Convention, as interpreted in the Strasbourg case-law in the field of Family Law. Information on the follow-up given to this project would be appreciated, as well as on measures aimed at raising, on the same issues, the awareness of the social services. Replying to the Committee of Ministers’ request for information as to the existence of an effective and regular supervision mechanism of the placement of children, the Italian Delegation presented two reports of the Tuscany regional council on the “Forteto” in May 2001 and February 2002, as well as a guardianship judge’s report established following an inspection in December 2001. At the 792^nd meeting (April 2002), the Italian Delegation explained however that these were ad hoc reports: regular inspections are only required when children are formally placed in an institution. Such controls would not be foreseen in case of placement with individual families, even if these belong to a community, such as in this case. At the 798^th meeting (June 2002), the attention of the Italian delegation was drawn to the need to fill this legal gap.

Furthermore, as regards the effectiveness of the controls, the attention of the Committee of Ministers was drawn to certain alleged links existing between the authorities in charge of children’s placement and the “Forteto” community (for instance, it appears from public documents that the guardian of the children and some members of the Youth Court are members of the “Forteto” foundation; moreover, the latter participates together with the public authorities and the social services in the management of a centre assisting the tribunal in the placement of children, the centre being hosted by the community itself). In the light of this, information was requested by the Committee of Ministers on measures envisaged to ensure that the authorities involved in the implementation and supervision of placements of children enjoy the necessary independence from the “Forteto” community. At the 775^th meeting (December 2001), the Italian Delegation indicated that the attention of the Superior Judicial Council would be drawn to the matter.

As regards the question raised of how it happened that people convicted of sexual abuse and ill-treatment were still managing a community entrusted with the care of children, the Italian Delegation explained that these people had been granted a stay of execution; in any event, any ban would no longer be applicable, as the convictions occurred a long time ago. Furthermore, these people would only be involved nowadays in the commercial activities of the Forteto and not in those related to children, according to the Italian Delegation. (see for details CM/Inf(2001)12, CM/Del/Act(2001)741).

- 4 cases against Turkey

H46-1116 25781 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

The case relates to the situation that has existed in northern Cyprus since the conduct of military operations there by Turkey in July and August 1974 and the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus. The European Court of Human Rights held that the matters complained of by Cyprus in its application entailed Turkey’s responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court held that there had been the following 14 violations of the Convention:

Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

- a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;

- a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in Turkish custody at the time of their disappearance;

- a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in that the silence of the Turkish authorities in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

Home and property of displaced persons

- a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) concerning the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus;

Sub-section 4.3

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights;

- a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Karpas region of northern Cyprus

- a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;

- a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship;

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognized;

- a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them;

- a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment;

- a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home;

- a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities, as a matter of practice, with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus

- a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the legislative practice of authorizing the trial of civilians by military courts.

The Court also decided, unanimously, that the question of the possible application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision and adjourned consideration thereof.

The Deputies examined this case for the first time at their 760^th meeting (July 2001) (see the records of the 760^th meeting).

During the second examination of the case at the 764^th meeting, in October 2001, delegations strongly supported the proposal made by the Delegation of Liechtenstein that the Committee should follow the approach already proposed by the Director General of human rights at the 760^th meeting, that is identifying specific categories of violations according to the complexity of the execution measures required:

- the question of missing persons,

- the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus,

- the rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus,

- the question of the homes and property of displaced persons.

The Liechtenstein Delegation proposed that Delegations concentrate on some of the violations presented under the heading “Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus” specifically in the Karpas region, as well as the problem of the powers of the military courts presented under heading “Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus”. As indicated by the Chairman in his summing-up, the procedure adopted for the examination of this case should not prevent the Deputies from pursuing in parallel an examination of the other issues raised in the Court’s Judgment.

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

Sub-section 4.3

At the 792^nd meeting, it was noted that a large number of Delegations consider that the question of missing persons should be examined as a matter of priority. At the same meeting the Delegation of Turkey gave a certain amount of information which has been distributed at its request, to all Delegations. The Delegation of Turkey notably indicated that the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts no longer took place: judges who sit on courts which try civilians are chosen from civilian judges by an independent body whose members themselves are civilians.

At the 798^th meeting of the Deputies, their discussions focused in particular on the situation of missing persons and the role played by the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP). Whilst the Turkish Delegation underlined the importance of the CMP, the contribution of Turkey to the work of the CMP and the necessity of reactivating it, several other delegations referred to the text of the Court’s judgment. In fact, in its judgment, the Court considers “that the respondent State’s procedural obligation at issue cannot be discharged through its contribution to the investigatory work of the CMP … (and) it notes that, although the CMP’s procedures are undoubtedly useful for the humanitarian purpose for which they were established, they are not of themselves sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2 of the Convention, especially in view of the narrow scope of that body’s investigations”

The Deputies agreed to re-examine this point at their 810^th meeting in October

H54-1117 15318 Loizidou, judgments of 18/12/96 (merits) and 28/07/98 (just satisfaction) Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105 and ResDH(2001)80

Addendum 4

At the present stage of the examination of the case the Deputies have decided to concentrate on the question of payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the last-mentioned judgment on account of the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of certain properties located in the Northern part of Cyprus (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Court specified that payment was to take place within 3 months, i.e. before 28 October 1998.

Just satisfaction: As Turkey did not pay the just satisfaction awarded, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the Icelandic Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 22 June 1999 wrote to his Turkish counterpart expressing the Committee’s concern regarding the failure to execute the judgment.

Payment still not taking place, the Committee adopted, on 6 October 1999, Interim Resolution DH (99) 680, strongly urging Turkey to review its position and to pay the just satisfaction awarded. As payment still remained outstanding, the Chairman of the Committee, the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote a new letter on 4 April 2000 to his Turkish counterpart reiterating the Committee’s expectation that Turkey ensure payment in the near future. The reply of the Turkish Ministers of Foreign Affairs indicated that Turkey did not consider itself to have either the competence or the jurisdiction to execute the Court’s judgment.

On 12 July 2000, the Deputies, in response, adopted a new Interim Resolution DH(2000)105, declaring that the refusal of Turkey to execute the judgment of the Court demonstrates a manifest disregard for its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe and insisted strongly, in view of the gravity of the matter, that Turkey comply fully and without any further delay with the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment of 28 July 1998.

At the 749^th meeting (April 2001) the Turkish Delegation presented a payment proposal subjected, however, to conditions deemed unacceptable by the other Delegations.

Payment not taking place the Committee adopted on 26 June 2001 a new Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)80 in which it recalled its previous Interim Resolutions and stated:

“Very deeply deploring the fact that, to date, Turkey has still not complied with its obligations under this judgment;

Stressing that every member State of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

Stressing that acceptance of the Convention, including the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the binding nature of its judgments, has become a requirement for membership of the organisation;

Sub-section 4.3

Stressing that the Convention is a system for the collective enforcement of the rights protected therein,

Declares the Committee’s resolve to ensure, with all means available to the organization, Turkey’s compliance with its obligations under this judgment,

Calls upon the authorities of the member States to take such action as they deem appropriate to this end.”

When the Deputies examined the matter at their 783^rd meeting (February 2002), the Turkish Delegation reiterated the proposal made at the 749^th meeting. Recalling that the conditions attaching to this proposal were unacceptable, several delegations presented proposals in order to make possible progress on the payment question.

The Deputies at the 792^nd meeting (April 2002), different proposals regarding payment of the sums awarded were discussed. The proposals examined were mainly based on the idea of a payment to the Council of Europe, which organisation should forward the sums, including default interest, to the applicant. The Delegations of Greece and Cyprus objected to such a payment method as it would not correspond to the Court’s judgment, which ordered payment to the applicant. Several Delegations asked Turkey to provide further clarifications as to the exact content of its own payment proposal.

The Chairman also presented to the Deputies a letter from the applicant in which she expressed her frustration and anguish about Turkey’s unwillingness to comply with the judgment and asked to be authorised to address the Committee in person at a forthcoming meeting. A short discussion followed indicating that the Deputies were not inclined to grant the request. A negative reply has subsequently been sent by the Chair to the applicant.

For procedural reasons the merits of the case could not be examined at the 796^th meeting (22 May 2002) and the examination was postponed to the 798^th DH meeting. The Chairman indicated that he would in the meantime continue his consultations with interested Delegations. At the 798^th (June 2002) and 803^rd (July 2002) meetings no new information was available and the discussions concentrated on possible modalities of payment. The Deputies decided to pursue their examination of the case at their 810^th meeting on 9-10 October 2002.

The texts of the Interim Resolutions adopted in this case appear in Addendum 4.

H46-1118 26308 Institut de Prêtres français & others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement

The case concerns a Turkish judicial decision of 1993 annulling the applicant Institute’s property entitlement to a plot of land on the grounds that, by letting part of this land to a private company, the applicant Institute was no longer eligible for special treatment as a non-profit body (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9). The parties concluded a friendly settlement according to which the Government undertook the following obligations:

- The Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations recognise the right to usufruct to the benefit of the priests representing the applicant Institute. This right to usufruct shall comprise the full use and enjoyment of the land and the buildings thereon and the right to rent the land for profit-making purposes in order to meet its needs;

- The two above-mentioned state authorities agree to undertake the formalities necessary to register their respective declarations in the land register with a view to renewing the life tenancy in favour of the priests who will replace the current usufructuary;

- The Directorate General of Foundations waives its claim to USD 41,670 owed by the applicant Institute in rent collected over the five years since its property title was annulled.

In October 2001, the applicant Institute indicated to the Secretariat that the Government had still not complied with the terms of the friendly settlement. The applicant thus requested that the appropriate action be taken without further delay by the authorities and that in particular:

- the Government should give instruction for registering in the land register the right to usufruct to the benefit of the current representative of the Church, Father Alain Fontaine;

- the Government should ensure that the General Directorate of Foundations immediately ceases the collection of the rents and recognises the applicant’s right to usufruct;

- the Treasury should withdraw its claim for compensation for illegal occupation of the plot.

Sub-section 4.3

The necessity of an urgent solution to these issues has been stressed in the Committee of Ministers at each of its DH meetings since October 2001 and the Turkish authorities have been invited to take the necessary measures without further delay. The Turkish Delegation indicated at each of these meetings that the above-mentioned problems were going to be solved, notably through a Decree by the Prime Minister. During the two last examinations of the case (798^th meeting, June 2002 and 803^rd meeting, July) the Turkish Delegation stated that the national authorities were engaged in negotiations with the applicant Institute in order to establish the division of rent between the State and the applicants. However, these negotiations have so far led to no conclusive result and the friendly settlement still remains unexecuted by the Government (more than a year and a half since the Court's judgment).

In view of these persistent problems, it is recalled that, in February 2002 the Chairman of the Committee proposed to write a letter to the competent Turkish authorities to convey to them the Committee’s concern about this case and request a rapid solution. The decision to send such a letter was however postponed, not least in view of the Turkish Delegation’s statements that a solution to the problem would be found very soon.

*H46-1119 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle & Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01

The case concerns the violation of the right to a fair trial in proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court, which sentenced the four applicants, members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, to 15 years’ imprisonment in December 1994.

The violations found are the following:

- lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6§1 - see §40 of the judgment);

- lack of timely information about the legal redefinition of the accusation brought against the applicants and lack of sufficient time and facilities to prepare the applicants’ defence (violation of Article 6§3 a and b taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§57-59 of the judgment);

- impossibility to examine or to have examined the witnesses who testified against the applicants (violation of Article 6§3d taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§67-68 of the judgment).

Having found these violations, the Court did not consider it necessary to decide separately the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10, 11 and 14.

Individual measures:

Background: In view of the extent of the violations of the right to a fair trial and of their consequences for the applicants, the Turkish authorities were requested, at the 764^th meeting (October 2001), to consider urgently specific individual measures to erase these consequences. (cf. Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation R(2000)2 and its Interim Resolution DH(2001)106 on the individual measures in cases concerning freedom of expression in Turkey).

The Turkish authorities initially informed the Committee (at the 775^th meeting, December 2001) that possibilities for re-opening domestic proceedings following the European Court’s judgments would be shortly introduced through legislation. However, at the 783^rd meeting (February 2002), the Turkish Delegation indicated that preparation of the draft law in question had been adjourned but that the Turkish authorities were continuing to seek ways to adopt the necessary individual measures in the present case. Many delegations expressed their disappointment at the fact that the new legislation, which was of such urgency for the execution of the present judgment, had been adjourned and deplored the fact that no specific measure had yet been taken in respect of the applicants. Some delegations furthermore stressed that the execution of the judgment was being attentively observed by the Parliamentary Assembly (cf. AS(2002)CR2) and outside the Council of Europe, notably by the European Union.

Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59: At the 794^th meeting (30 April 2002), as no progress in the execution of the judgment was reported on this point, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution in which it

- Strongly urges the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to respond to the Committee’s repeated demands that the said authorities urgently remedy the applicants’ situation and take the necessary measures in order to reopen the proceedings impugned by the Court in this case, or other ad hoc measures erasing the consequences for the applicants of the violations found;

-Decides, in view of the urgency of the situation, to resume its control of the adoption of these individual measures, if necessary at each of its meetings.

Sub-section 4.3

At the 798^th (June 2002) and 803^rd (July 2002) meetings, the Turkish delegation stated that the authorities were still considering the introduction of a possibility for reopening of proceedings through legislation.

At the 807^th meting (September 2002), the Representative of Turkey presented the reforms adopted by the Parliament on 3 August 2002 and the Deputies specifically considered the amendments to the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure, which concern the reopening of domestic proceedings. Disappointment was expressed at the fact that that the four applicants in the present case – who continue to serve their 15-year prison sentences and to suffer the consequences of the violations found – will not be able to benefit from the newly adopted provisions (the latter will be applicable only to new cases lodged with the European Court after their entry into force, i.e. after 3 August 2003). The necessity for urgent action to grant the applicants the appropriate redress has been accordingly strongly reiterated.

Chairman's Replies to the Parliamentary Assembly: In replying to the parliamentary questions at the 3rd part session of the Parliamentary Assembly (25/06/2002), the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers notably recalled the Turkish Government’s undertaking made a long time ago to introduce judicial means for reopening domestic proceedings found to have violated the Convention and the fact that this undertaking had not been met. She undertook to raise the matter personally with the Turkish Foreign Minister (see AS(2002)CR18). In her communication given at the Assembly's 4th part session (24/09/2002), the Chairman stated that the Sadak and others judgment was the first question that she raised with the Turkish Foreign Minister during their informal meeting in New York on 11 September 2002. The Turkish Minister made it clear that he grasped the full importance of the question, and promised to think it over and take it up with the relevant authorities.

Decisions by the Parliamentary Assembly: At its 4th part session (23/09/2002) the Parliamentary Assembly held a debate and adopted a Resolution and a Recommendation on the implementation of the Court's judgments by Turkey. The relevant parts of the texts adopted read as follows:

Resolution 1297(2002):

"10. The Assembly deeply regrets that the new legislation on reopening of proceedings adopted by Turkey in August 2002 expressly excludes any possibility of complying with the Court's judgment in the Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Dogan case, so that the four applicants will continue to serve their 15 year prison sentences imposed following an unfair trial. It strongly supports the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights’ demand to urgently remedy the applicants' situation either by making this new legislation immediately applicable to all pending cases or by adopting ad hoc measures in the applicants' favour. In case the applicants' situation is not rectified, the Assembly will consider the consequences of such a refusal at its session in April 2003."

Recommendation 1576(2002):

"1. The Assembly (…) urges the Committee of Ministers to take all necessary measures to ensure the execution of the Court’s decisions without delay, notably by ensuring that the recent legislation of reopening of proceedings enters immediately into force and is made applicable to all cases pending before the Committee of Ministers for control of execution under Article 46 of the Convention;

(…)

5. Finally, with respect to the Sakak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan case, the Assembly referring to its Resolution 1297 (2002) and to Turkey’s obligation under the Convention to take concrete measures to remedy the consequences of the violation found by the Court, urges the Committee of Ministers to use all means at its disposal to ensure compliance with the judgment without further delay."

General measures (no debate envisaged at this meeting):

Information has been requested with regard to the measures the Turkish authorities envisage with a view to preventing new, similar violations. The Turkish authorities have informed the Committee that some reforms had already been adopted and certain others were under way.

As regards the specific problem relating to the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security courts, general measures have already been adopted within the constitutional reform which replaced the military judge on State Security Courts by a civil judge (see the Çiraklar against Turkey case, judgment of 28/10/1998, Resolution DH (99) 555). As regards the right to a fair trial in general, this right received constitutional protection as a result of an amendment to Article 36 of the Constitution on 17 October 2001.

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

(See Addendum 5 for part or all these cases)

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise progress in the adoption of general measures aiming at preventing further similar violations to those found by the Court in the following cases. If necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in Addendum 5. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases in 6 months at the latest.

SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES

- 1 case against Austria

H46-1009 49455 Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (8 years and 3½ months) which ended in 2001 (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: A reform of the Code of Civil Proceedings which will enter into force on 01/01/2003 provides for a number of measures aiming at the acceleration of civil proceedings (preliminary hearing which will allow the preclusion of belated presentations through the parties’ fault, time-limits for the submission of expert opinions, simplification of formalities concerning convocations, sanctions for unjustified refusal of parties to co-operate with experts).

- 1 case against Belgium

H54-1121 17849 S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera, judgments of 20/11/95 and 03/07/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)724

The case concerns the retroactive effect of certain rules governing the State’s liability for acts and omissions of pilots of sea-going ships (introduced by the Belgian Act of 30 August 1988) and the interference thus caused in the peaceful enjoyment of the possessions of ship-owners who had brought actions against the State on account of accidents which occurred before the new law entered into force (violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: Following the European Court’s judgment of 20 November 1995 on the merits, the Belgian courts which were dealing with cases concerning the applicant companies have ceased to apply the 1988 Act which was at the origin of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case (see, for example, judgment of the Antwerp Commercial Court of 6 June 1996, judgment of the Ghent Court of Appeal of 31 October 1996). The Belgian authorities are keeping the Committee informed of the progress and of the outcome of the other proceedings concerning the applicant companies.

General measures: In 1997, the Government approved a bill which would delete the reference to the retrospective exemption from pilots’ liability provided for under the Act of 30 August 1988 and introduce a new system of limited liability for maritime claims prior to the entry into force of this Act. However, the Conseil d’Etat concluded, after examination of the bill, that its Article 2§2 “ran a serious risk of appearing to be contrary to Article 6 of the Convention” and that “the whole bill was therefore to be reviewed” (see Interim Resolution DH(99)724). At the 764^th meeting (September 2001), the Belgian Delegation indicated that in summer 2001 the Government adopted and submitted to the Parliament a new draft law which simply abolishes the retroactive exemption of pilots’ liability and thus completely resolves the problem at the basis of violations in this case. According to the information available to the Secretariat, the said Bill has not yet been adopted.

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H46-1017 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

The case relates to the criminal conviction of the applicant, a Jehovah’s witness, for having refused to serve in the army on the grounds of conscientious objection (complaint under Article 9).

Individual and general measures: In addition to the Government’s agreement to pay certain sums for legal costs, the friendly settlement reached by the parties provides notably as follows:

“a) all criminal proceedings and judicial sentences pronounced in the Republic of Bulgaria against especially but not limited to Bulgarian citizens since 1991 [Mr I. S. and three other applicants in other cases] for refusing military service by virtue of their individual conscientious objection but who were willing at the same time to perform alternative civilian service shall be dismissed and all penalties and/or disabilities heretofore imposed in these cases shall be eliminated as if there was never a conviction for a violation of the law. Thus the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes the responsibility to introduce draft legislation before the National Assembly for a total amnesty for these cases;" (…)

Sub-section 5.1

The Government informed the Committee from the outset that, in accordance with the friendly settlement, the consequences of the applicant’s conviction were completely erased and that there were currently no pending charges on account of refusals by Jehovah’s witnesses to carry out military service. By letter of 10 September 2002, the Bulgarian Delegation provided the Secretariat with a draft Law granting the amnesty for all persons who were convicted on such charges after 1991. The said draft, which was approved by the Government on 1 April 2002, also provides for erasing all consequences of these convictions. According to the information provided, the draft was going to be adopted by Parliament in the near future.

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-1122 38432 Thoma, judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01[65]

- 3 cases against Malta

H46-1123 25642 Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99

H46-1124 25644 T.W., judgment of 29/04/99

H46-1125 35892 Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

The applicants complained mainly of a breach of their right to be brought promptly before a judge who could examine whether their arrest was reasonable and order their release (violation of Article 5§3, and also of 5§4 in the case of Sabeur Ben Ali).

General measures: The Committee of Ministers has been informed that, following the publication of the White Paper on proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a Bill (No. 28) to amend the Criminal Code was published in the Government Gazette on 26 June 2001. The Bill has already passed its first and second readings in Parliament and is now being debated before the Committee of the House of Representatives.

Irrespective of the amendments to the Criminal Code, by letter dated 22 June 1999, the Secretariat was informed of the adoption of guidelines communicated to police officers and prosecutors, as well as of the publication of the judgments of the European Court. A copy of these documents as well as exact references as to the publication of the judgments of the European Court have been requested.

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-1126 25989 Van Vlimmeren & Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

The case concerns the excessive length (more than 9 years) of certain civil proceedings, which are still pending, relating to the damage caused by regular flooding of the applicants’ land (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures (no debate necessary): The Netherlands authorities have indicated that the proceedings were still pending but no delay was imputable to the judicial authorities which have demonstrated that they are now dealing with the case with due diligence.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published in Nederlands Juristen Blad. The Netherlands authorities also indicated that the judgment of the European Court should lead to changes in legislation. Accordingly, the Land Development Act will be completely redrafted so as to allow immediate access to domestic courts with respect to similar complaints and thus to avoid new violations of the same kind (the relevant amendments are expected to enter into force in 2004). At the 792^nd meeting (April 2002), the Dutch delegation indicated that more details concerning the progress of this legislative work would be available after the elections, i.e. by the end of 2002.

Sub-section 5.1

- 6 cases against Poland

H46-1127 29691 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01[66]

H54-1128 27916 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98[67]

H54-1129 28616 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98[68]

H46-1130 25693+ Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01[69]

H46-1131 33082 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01[70]

H54-1132 32734 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01[71]

- 2 cases against Romania

H54-1133 27053 Vasilescu, judgment of 22/05/98 - Interim Resolution DH(99)676

The case concerns the fact that valuables, unlawfully seized by the militia in 1966, were kept, and the right of access to an independent tribunal to order their return (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: By a judgment of 2 December 1997, the Constitutional Court rectified the problem at the origin of the violation of Article 6§1 to a great extent by interpreting Article 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as providing for judicial appeal against the acts of prosecutors (see Interim Resolution DH(99)676 of 8 October 1999). The judicial practice has subsequently changed and, as result, appeals against prosecutors’ acts are now accepted by courts. As regards the legislative situation, the Ministry of Justice has prepared a bill amending the Code of Criminal Procedure so that the latter clearly confirms the new practice (see Interim Resolution DH(99)676). New draft Article 278 provided specifically that anyone has a right to appeal before a judge against acts taken by the prosecution. At the 764^th meeting (October 2001), it was noted that although the judicial practice had already changed, the rapid adoption of the new legislation confirming this change would still be of great importance. In June 2002 the Romanian Delegation indicated that the Government had already approved the aforementioned bill and sent it to Parliament. At the time of issuing the present annotated agenda, the Secretariat had not yet received the information on the outcome of the parliamentary proceedings.

H54-1134 27273 Petra, judgment of 23/09/98[72]

- 1 case against Switzerland

H54-1135 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678[73]

Sub-section 5.1

- 1 case against Turkey

H54-1136 18954 Zana, judgment of 25/11/97

The case concerns in particular the fact that the applicant could not appear in person at the hearing before the Court of Appeal which handed down his definitive prison sentence, and the excessive length of the relevant criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: The necessity to clarify the effect of Article 226§4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was at the origin of the violation of the right to a fair trial, was raised. In 1998, the Turkish authorities prepared a bill amending this provision. The new provisions of the Code (Article 194) will allow the judge not to summon the accused to the hearing only if the latter agrees not to attend. According to the latest information provided by the Turkish delegation at the 760^th meeting (July 2001), the draft law was still being examined by parliament. No information regarding the outcome of the bill is presently available.

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-1137 30308 Faulkner Ian, judgment of 30/11/99 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The applicant complained of the fact that he could not pursue a civil action in Guernsey, as legal aid could not be granted for that purpose (complaint under Article 6§1).

General measures: The Government of the United Kingdom has informed the Committee that following the introduction of an interim Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, an interim Civil Legal Aid Scheme was introduced with effect from 1 January 2002. As to the Criminal Aid Scheme, in 119 cases during the year 2001, legal aid has been provided for persons who have been detained in police or customs custody. In the light of the lessons which are being learned operating these schemes, legislation will be drafted. A legislative draftsman is currently considering the format of the primary legislation which will be needed. The Committee has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field.

H54-1138 22520 Johnson Stanley, judgment of 24/10/97

The case concerns the applicant’s continued detention in a hospital, although he was no longer suffering from mental illness, pending his placement in a hostel (violation of Article 5§1).

General measures: the Representative of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers that a circular issued by the Department of Health (number HSC 2000/03) had been sent to all authorities concerned drawing attention to the Johnson judgment. A revised Statutory Code of Practice of the Mental Health Act of 1983 came into force on 1 April 1999. Furthermore, both the report of a group of independent experts appointed to review all the changes needed to the Mental Health Act and the Consultation Paper on the reform of the Mental Health Act (Green Paper) were published on 16 November 1999. In this respect, the Committee has asked to be kept informed as to when the expected Mental Health Bill remedying the breaches found in this case will be placed before Parliament.

Finally, the Johnson judgment had been published in the European Human Rights Report.

H46-1139 26494 J.T., judgment of 30/03/00 - Friendly settlement[74]

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

No new case

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

- 2 cases against Finland

H46-1140 49684 Hirvisaari, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that the Pension Board and the Insurance Court failed to give adequate reasons for their decisions concerning the reduction of the applicant’s full invalidity pension to a partial pension (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: At the 792^nd meeting, publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the Pension Board and the Insurance Court were requested. Written confirmation of this is awaited.

H46-1141 25702 K. & T., judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/07/01[75]

- 1 case against Germany

H46-1142 34045 Hoffmann, judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02

The case concerns in particular the applicant’s complaint that, as a natural father, he had no access to his daughter since the legislation (proceedings for suspension of the right of access to children – Articles 1634, 1705 and 1711 of the Civil Code, in force in the early nineties) was less favourable to a natural father than to a divorced father (Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8). It also concerns the fact that he was excluded from making a further appeal challenging the first appeal decision (violation of Article 6§1). The case presents similarities with the Elsholz case (see Resolution DH (2001)155). Furthermore, section 63a of the Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings has been repealed by the Law on Family Matters of 1997.

General measures: publication of the judgment still to be confirmed.

- 1 case against Greece

H46-1144 43622 Malama, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01 and judgment of 18/04/02, final on 18/07/02, concerning Article 41

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property in that the national authorities did not take into account a period of more than 75 years since the expropriation of the applicant’s land in determining and reimbursing compensation due to her (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The date-limit for the payment of the just satisfaction is not until 18/10/2002.

General measures: The judgment was published on the official Internet site of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr). The confirmation of the dissemination is awaited.

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-1145 36743 Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01[76]

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-1048 31465 Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

The case concerns the refusal by the Dutch authorities (application introduced by the applicants before the Dutch authorities on 26 October 1992) to grant a residence permit to Sinem Sen (third applicant – daughter of the two other applicants) to join her parents in the Netherlands (violation of Article 8).

Individual and/or general measures: the Dutch authorities have confirmed that if Ms Sinem Sen requested a residence permit, it would be granted by the relevant authorities. Publication and dissemination of the judgment to the authorities concerned are still to be confirmed.

Sub-section 5.3

- 1 case against Poland

H46-1146 28358 Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00[77]

SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

No new case

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

Action

At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the Secretariat was preparing, in consultation with the Permanent Representations concerned, draft resolutions aiming at closing the examination of these cases. The Deputies are invited to postpone consideration of these cases to their next meeting.

Section 6

- 15 cases against Austria

H46-212 33382 Fischer Joseph, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-1147 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-1148 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

H46-1149 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-1150 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-1151 30428 Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01

H46-1152 27783 T., judgment of 14/11/00

H46-1153 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

H32-1154 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H.

H54-1155 15153 Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs & Berthold Gubi,

judgment of 19/12/94

H46-1156 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-1157 35115 Riepan, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-1158 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

H46-1159 26958 Jerusalem, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1160 17291 Hortolomei

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H32-1161 30381 Mironov - Interim Resolution DH(99)352

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-1162 53227 Majstorović, judgment of 06/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 3 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-1163 33644 Cesky, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

H46-1164 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

H46-1165 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

- 1 case against Denmark

H46-1167 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Finland

H46-1168 25651 L., judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

- 48 cases against France

H54-1 21802 Muller, judgment of 17/03/97

H32-2 24263 Areno

H46-3 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

H32-4 23438 Elbialy

H32-5 22578 G.N. II

H54-6 28213 I.A., judgment of 23/09/98

H32-7 18847 J-P.DV

H32-8 15091 L.D.

H32-9 21911 Lanza

H32-10 17831 Morganti

H46-11 38781 P.B., judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H32-12 24245 Touihri

Section 6

H46-1169 46693 Chapus, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

H46-1170 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

H46-1171 39779+ Gombert & Gochgarian, judgment of 13/02/201, final on 13/05/01

H46-1172 34947 Richet, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H32-1173 31603 Hermant

H32-1174 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V

H46-1175 40493 Jacquie & Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H32-1176 25309 Maljean

H54-1177 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-1178 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-1179 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

H54-1180 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

H46-1181 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

H32-1182 27518 A.S.

H32-1183 35259 Nagler

H46-1184 38437 Delgado, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-1185 38687 Djaid, judgment of 29/09/99, final on 29/12/99

H32-1186 26496 Société Fruehauf France

H46-1187 33933 Guisset, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/09/00

H46-1188 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes & Omer, judgment of 14/11/00,

final on 14/02/01

H46-1189 34553 Dulaurans, judgment of 21/03/00

H32-1190 27659 Ferville

H32-1191 28845 Venot

H32-1192 33656 Lemoine Daniel

H32-1193 17572 A.C.

H54-1194 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

H54-1195 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

H54-1196 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

H46-1197 25444 Pelissier & Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

H32-1198 27413 Cazes

H46-1199 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-1200 25088 Chassagnou & others, judgment of 29/04/99

H54-1201 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

H32-1202 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I

H54-1203 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

H46-1204 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

- 2 cases against Germany

H46-1143 38073 H.T., judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02

H46-1205 51342 Kalantari, judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02 – Striking out

- 36 cases against Greece

H46-1207 40434 Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

H46-1208 40428 Zohiou, judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/03/01

H46-1209 39442 Société Anonyme Sotiris & Nikos Koutras Attee, judgment of 16/11/00,

final on 16/02/01

H46-1210 30342 Academy Trading Ltd & others, judgment of 04/04/00

H54-1211 28523 Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

H46-1212 38971 Protopapa & Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-1213 40437 Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

H46-1214 41459 Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H54-1215 20323 Pafitis & others, judgment of 26/02/98

Section 6

H46-1216 38459 Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

H32-1217 34569 Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique,

commerciale & touristique

H32-1218 32857 Stamoulakatos Nicholas I

H46-1219 37439 Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H54-1220 19773 Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

H54-1221 18357 Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

H46-1222 37098 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela & Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99,

final on 21/03/00

H46-1223 31107 Iatridis, arrêt des 25/03/99 et 19/10/00 (just satisfaction) –

Grand Chamber

H46-1224 41209 Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H32-1225 30175 S.A. « Avis Entreprises Hôtelières Touristiques & Industrielles Rurales »

H46-1226 33170 Biba, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

H46-1227 28802 Tsavachidis, judgment of 21/01/99

H54-1228 24294 Twalib, judgment of 09/06/98

H54-1229 19233+ Tsirlis & Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

H54-1230 20680 Tsomtsos & others, judgment of 15/11/96

H46-1231 31423 Papachelas, judgments of 25/03/99 and 04/04/00

H54-1232 19385 Katikaridis & others, judgment of 15/11/96

H46-1233 43597 Dionyssios Petrotos, judgment of 29/02/00 –Friendly settlement

H46-1234 38194 Karakasis, judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H46-1235 34369 Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

H46-1236 38704 Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H46-1237 41867 Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H32-1238 24453 Tarighi Wageh Dashti

H46-1239 46380 LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-1240 52538 Examiliotis, judgment of 18/04/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1241 49222 Tiburzi, judgment of 25/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1242 38703 Agoudimos & Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

- 1 case against Hungary

H46-1243 32396 Magyar, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

- 1 case against Ireland

H46-1244 33267 Croke, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01 - Friendly settlement

- 85 cases against Italy

H32-14 14667 Cantafio

H46-1245 43082 C.S., judgment of 22/06/00

H54-1246 14967 Guerra & 39 others, judgment of 19/02/98

H32-1247 27253 Biasetti

H32-1248 25650 Santandrea

H46-1249 29569 Buscemi, judgment of 16/09/99

H46-1250 37019 A.M., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1251 40979 Conte Riccardo II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1252 40954 D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1253 44814+ M.A. & 81 others, judgment of 30/11/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1254 40978 Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1255 40956 Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1256 44344 Marcotrigiano, judgment of 19/12/00

Section 6

H46-1257 41812 Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1258 43077 A.S. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1259 43092 Ascierto Pietro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1260 43048 Bernardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1261 43005 Bianchi Michele, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1262 38973 Borrillo, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-1263 40975 Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1264 43081 C.T., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1265 43073 Camerlengo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1266 43007 Capasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1267 46535 Caruso Alfredo, judgment of 05/10/00

H46-1268 43008 Catillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1269 43107 Circelli Maria Carmela, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1270 42989 Costantini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1271 40960 Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1272 43014 D’Errico, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1273 43044 De Cicco Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1274 43003 De Fiore, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1275 43013 De Nunzio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1276 42992 Del Grosso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1277 43047 Del Vecchio Edvige, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1278 43009 Di Biase Maria, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1279 42991 Falzarano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1280 43045 Forgione, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1281 43049 Fusco Adelia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1282 43104 Galietti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1283 43002 Giorgio Nicola, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1284 43103 Lombardi Gianfranco & 7 others, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1285 43105 Intorcia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1286 43006 La Vista, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1287 43080 M.A.P., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1288 42990 Manganiello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1289 40722 Marotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1290 42988 Marucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1291 42994 Mascolo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1292 43046 Masella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1293 43001 Masuccio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1294 42995 Mirra, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1295 43071 Narciso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1296 43079 P.C. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1297 43089 Pellegrino Rossi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1298 43090 Perugini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1299 43106 Rossi Lina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1300 43108 Selvaggio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1301 43004 Verzino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1302 43078 Z., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1303 30968 Barone Mario, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1304 32645 Castello, judgment of 04/10/01- Friendly settlement

H46-1305 32404 Girolami Zurla, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1306 31922 Micucci, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1307 33831 Musiani Dagnini, judgment of 04/10/01- Friendly settlement

H46-1308 31929 Pini & Bini, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1309 31927 Serlenga, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1310 32650 Sit s.r.l., judgment of 04/10/01- Friendly settlement

H46-1311 32648 Tentori Montalto, judgment of 04/10/01- Friendly settlement

H46-1312 31227 Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

Section 6

H54-1313 14025 Zubani, judgment of 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

H32-1314 16609 Intrieri

*H46-1315 44401 Fermi & others, judgment of 06/11/01 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1316 32671 B. & F., judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1317 33966 Bastreghi, judgment of 03/12/01 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1318 32363 Bertini, judgment of 03/12/01 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1319 37242 Caramanti, judgment of 03/12/01 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1320 32541 Celona, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1321 31605 Colucci, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1322 33967 De Filippis, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1323 31480 Guglielmi II, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1324 37509 Pané, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1325 31525 Bozza, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1326 31259 Rizzi, judgment of 03/12/01 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1327 39716 Stoppini, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1328 38656 Tiberio, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-1329 50108 Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-1330 34578 Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

- 3 cases against Luxembourg

H46-1331 21156 G.J., judgment of 26/10/00

H46-1332 41761 Scheele, judgment of 17/05/01, final on 17/08/01

*H46-1333 45165 Matthies-Lenzen, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 6 cases against the Netherlands

H32-1334 14084 R.V. & others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

H46-1335 28369 Camp & Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-1336 29192 Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-1337 31725 Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01

*H46-1338 58964 K.K.C., judgment of 21/12/01 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1339 33258 Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

- 5 cases against Poland

H46-1340 31382 Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-1341 38670 Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

H46-1342 51669 Pałys, judgment of 11/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1343 31387 Kliniecki, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1344 25874 Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

- 4 cases against Portugal

H46-836 43658 Sousa Miranda, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1346 37528 Martins & Garcia Alves, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-1347 42636 Bento Da Mota, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-1348 37698 Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

Section 6

- 1 case against Romania

H32-1349 32922 C.C.M.C.

- 6 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-1350 40345 Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H46-1351 29032 Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

H46-1352 32686 Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

H46-1353 46843 Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1354 34753 Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-1355 24530 Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

- 2 cases against Slovenia

H46-1356 29462 Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

H46-1357 28400 Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

- 3 cases against Sweden

H46-1359 26978 Beck, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1360 28222 Muonio Saami Village, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1361 32531 Jakola, judgment of 06/03/01 – Friendly settlement

- 12 cases against Switzerland

H46-1362 27154 D.N., judgment of 29/03/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-1363 33958 Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1364 27798 Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

H54-1365 23224 Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

H32-1366 26452 D’Amico Heidi & Salvatore

H46-1367 54273 Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

H46-1368 24699 VGT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-1369 37292 F.R., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-1370 33499 Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-1371 27426 G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-1372 28256 M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H32-1373 27613 P.B.

- 61 cases against Turkey

H46-849 38931 İ.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1374 29295+ Ecer & Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1375 33369 Can, judgment of 05/12/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1376 33645 Polat Yuksel, judgment of 05/12/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1377 34591 Özçetin, judgment of 05/12/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1378 31850 Günay & others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-1383 34499 Kortak, judgment of 31/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H32-1384 22907 Atatür A. & M., & Pamir

H46-1385 24947 Ekinci Lalihan, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1386 24937 Koç Fırat, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1387 29425 Özçelik & others, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1388 34686 Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1389 29851 Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H46-1390 31896 Değerli, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1391 30453 Özata & others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

Section 6

H46-1392 36760 Şanlı & Erol, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1393 19264 Aktaş & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1394 19266 Baltekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1395 19267 Bilgin Mehmet & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1396 19269 Bozkurt & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1397 19271 Nuriye Buzcu, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1398 19272 Çalkan & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1399 19273 Çapar, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1400 19274 Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1401 19275 Çelebi Yusuf, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1402 19276 Çiplak & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1403 19277 Daniş, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1404 19278 Erol, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1405 19281 Gökmen & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1406 19283 Işik Ayşe & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1407 19286 Karabulut Sefer, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1408 19287 Özen, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1409 19288 Öztekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1410 19280 Gökgöz, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1411 32983 Çavuşoğlu, judgment of 06/03/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1412 24669 Karataş & Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1413 29921 Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

H46-1414 19270 Ilhan Buzcu & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1415 19268 Bilgin Saniye & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1416 19284 Işik Yilmaz & others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1417 35980 Z.E., judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1418 28011 Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1419 24933 Kürküt, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1420 29862 Bağci & Murğ, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1421 32450 Çaloğlu, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1422 29866+ Demir C., Demir M. & Gül, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1423 30495 Mutlu & Yildiz, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1424 29883+ Fidan, Çağro & Özarslaner, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1425 28013+ Karatepi & Kirt, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1426 31249 Gündüz & others, judgement of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1430 28014+ Okuyucu, Kara & Bilmen, judgment of 17/07/01

H46-1431 31882 Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1436 31787 Göktaş & others, judgment of 25/09/01

H46-1437 31895 Morsümbül, judgment of 25/09/01

H46-1438 37191 Yildirim & others, judgment of 25/09/01

H46-1439 31312 Eğinlioğlu, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1440 31849 İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01

H46-1441 31733 Tuncay & Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

*H46-1442 24932 Kaplan, judgment of 26/02/02 – Friendly settlement

*H46-1444 34684 Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 18 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-1103 29545 Devlin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1445 24724 T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1446 24888 V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1447 45276 Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H54-1448 24839 Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

H46-1449 35685 Mills, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01

H32-1450 27237 Govell

Section 6

H32-1451 26109 Santa Cruz Ruiz

H54-1452 24838 Steel, Lush, Needham, Polden & Cole, judgment of 23/09/98

H46-1453 35394 Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

H46-1454 28901 Rowe & Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

H46-1455 35718 Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

H46-1456 33274 Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

H46-1457 39360 S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46-1458 40161 Downie, judgment of 21/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1459 44585 Loffelman, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H54-1460 20605 Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

*H46-1461 36670 Duyonov & others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
(819th MEETING, 3-4 December 2002)

(See Addendum Preparation of the next meeting

to the present annotated agenda and order of business)

Action

The Deputies are invited to approve the preliminary lists of items to be examined at the next DH meeting, which appears in Addendum Preparation of the next meeting to the present annotated agenda and order of business.

[1] Following a decision taken by the Deputies on 26 February 2001 these Rules are also applicable to the control of execution of cases decided by the Committee of Ministers itself under the former Article 32 of the Convention or transmitted to the Committee by the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to former Article 54 of the Convention (as worded before the entry into force of Protocol N° 11 on 1 November 1998).

[2] 1481 + 208 cases in Section 3.

[3] Information on the payment of just satisfaction has been transmitted to the Secretariat after the deadline for the submission for information. This information appears in the table, at the end of sub-section 3.1b of the Annotated Agenda and Order of business of that meeting. It will be examined by the Secretariat for the next meeting.

[4] Cases decided by the Committee itself under the former Article 32 of the Convention (the last decision on a violation of the Convention pursuant to this procedure was taken at the 741^st meeting in February 2001).

[5] Judgment delivered in respect of only one applicant, Mr Gojko Mikecin.

[6] Date of the decision rejecting the request for referral to the Grand Chamber.

[7] Date of the decision rejecting the request for referral to the Grand Chamber.

[8] Date of the decision rejecting the request for referral to the Grand Chamber.

[9] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[10] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[11] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[12] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[13] Date of the decision rejecting the request for referral to the Grand Chamber.

[14] Including 24 years and 6 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[15] Including 26 years and 4 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[16] Including 24 years and 11 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[17] Including 25 years and 5 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[18] Including 26 years and 8 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[19] Including 24 years and 9 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[20] Including 25 years and 4 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[21] Including 23 years and 10 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[22] Including 22 years and 10 months since Italy’s acceptance of the right of individual application.

[23] Date of the decision rejecting the request for referral to the Grand Chamber.

[24] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case pending the decision of the Cour on the request made by the Governement for a rectification of the judgment following the applicant's death.

[25] The name of the case (previously Il Messagero s.a.s. VII) was changed by a rectification judgement on 4 July 2002.

[26] The case is also examined under Section 4.2

[27] Including the Scozzari & Giunta case, see sub-section 4.3

[28] Including the Loizidou case, see sub-section 4.3

[29] Cases McKerr, Shanagan, Hugh Jordan and Kelly and others, see sub-section 4.2

[30] The case is also examined under Section 4.2 (freedom of expression).

[31] The case is also examined under Section 4.2 (freedom of expression).

[32] The case is also examined under Section 4.2 (freedom of expression).

[33] The case is also examined under Section 4.2 (freedom of expression).

[34] The case is also examined under Section 4.2 (freedom of expression).

[35] Inclusion of cases in this Section does not exclude the possibility that general measures may be examined at subsequent meetings.

[36] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[37] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[38] The Secretariat propose the postponement of the examination of this case to the 819th meeting, in order to have it examined together with the Szucs, Werner, Lamana and Ashan Rushiti cases.

[39] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[40] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[41] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[42] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[43] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[44] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[45] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[46] This judgment is final on 12.12.2001 since the respondent Government was informed on that date that the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber had been dismissed.

[47] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[48] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[49] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[50] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[51] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[52] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[53] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[54] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[55] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[56] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[57] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[58] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[59] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[60] The case is also examined under Section 3.1.a.

[61] The case is also examined under Section 3.1.c.

[62] The case is also examined under Section 3.1.c.

[63] Furthermore, in the Başkaya & Okçuoğlu case, the sentence imposed on the second applicant was not provided by the law (violation of Article 7). Nine of these cases also concern the independence and impartiality of State Security Courts (violation of Article 6§1) and measures have already been adopted in order to solve this problem, thus preventing new similar violations.

[64] In the National Programme of reforms established within the framework of Turkey’s candidature to accession to the European Union communicated in writing to all Delegations on 28 March 2001.

[65] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[66] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[67] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[68] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[69] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[70] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[71] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[72] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[73] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[74] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[75] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[76] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.

[77] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the 819th meeting.