Ministers’ Deputies / Délégués des Ministres

Agenda / Ordre du jour

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2010)1092 Section/Rubrique 2 1 PUBLIC 29 September/septembre 2010

——————————————

1092 meeting / réunion (DH),

14-15 September / septembre 2010

Section/Rubrique 2.1

——————————————

Public information version /

Version destinée à l'information publique

NEW CASES

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

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

In cases in which the measures have already been taken in response to earlier judgments raising similar issues or in cases in which the European Court has ordered specific measures, this will be indicated.

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

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

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

Onoufriou against Cyprus (24407/04)

Antica and the "R" company against Romania (26732/03)

Bora against Turkey (14719/03) (reserved)

Işık Sinan against Turkey (21924/05)

Yıldırır against Turkey (21482/03) (reserved)

Crompton against United Kingdom (42509/05)

NOUVELLES AFFAIRES

Cette rubrique contient la liste des nouveaux arrêts rendus par la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme, (pour plus de détails, voir le texte des arrêts de la Cour, http://www.echr.coe.int).

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

Il sera fait mention des mesures déjà prises en réponse à des arrêts précédents soulevant des questions similaires ainsi que des mesures spécifiques ordonnées par la Cour européenne.

En tout état de cause, l’envoi des arrêts de la Cour à toutes les autorités concernées est demandé dans toutes les affaires et les délégations sont invitées à en fournir la confirmation écrite.

Paiement de la satisfaction équitable Dans toutes les nouvelles affaires où les Etats sont tenus au paiement d’une satisfaction équitable décidée par la Cour ou convenue aux termes de règlements amiables, les autorités de l’Etat défendeur sont invitées à fournir au Secrétariat par écrit les confirmations de paiement.

Dans toutes ces affaires, une satisfaction équitable ou une compensation en vertu d'un règlement amiable a été octroyée aux requérants à l'exception des affaires suivantes :

Onoufriou contre Chypre (24407/04)

Antica et la société « R » contre Roumanie (26732/03)

Bora contre Turquie (14719/03) (réservée)

Işık Sinan contre Turquie (21924/05)

Yıldırır contre Turquie (21482/03) (réservée)

Crompton contre Royaume-Uni (42509/05)

The Deputies decided in particular to resume consideration of these items at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on the payment of the just satisfaction, if necessary. /

Les Délégués décident notamment de reprendre l’examen de ces points lors de leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’informations à fournir sur le paiement de la satisfaction équitable, si nécessaire.

- 1 case against Armenia / 1 affaire contre l'Arménie

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of the action plan and/or action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 2 cases against Austria / 2 affaires contre l'Autriche

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

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

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

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d'un plan d'action / bilan d'action à fournir par les autorités.

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

The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Appeals Commission and the Administrative Court, and the lack of a domestic remedy whereby the applicants could have obtained a ruling upholding their right to have their case heard within a reasonable time (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 13).

These proceedings began on 23/12/1999, and ended on 19/04/2007 (7 years and 4 months for two levels of jurisdiction).

The case presents similarities to the Ortner group of cases (2884/04) (1100th meeting, December 2010), but this is the first case in which the European Court also found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d'un plan d'action / bilan d'action à fournir par les autorités.

- 2 cases against Azerbaijan / 2 affaires contre l'Azerbaïdjan

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

The case concerns a violation of the applicants' right to freedom of association (violations of Article 11) due the dissolution of the association by the Ministry of Justice for reasons which were “not necessary in a democratic society” as they were not compelling and were disproportionate to the legitime aim pursued.

The applicant association is a non-governmental organisation conducting activities in the environmental field, which was registered by the Ministry of Justice on 25/08/1995. It was dissolved on 7/03/2003 by the Yasamal District Court upon request of the Ministry of Justice, in application of the NGO Act of 13/06/2000, because it had allegedly breached the legal requirements on internal management and had engaged in “activities prohibited by law”. The District Court decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 4/07/2003 and the Supreme Court on 29/10/2003.

The European Court noted that there was strong indication that the provisions of the NGO Act did not meet the “quality of law” requirement, which would be sufficient for a finding of a violation of Article 11 on the basis that the interference was not prescribed by law. The Court noted in particular that the provisions regarding the possibility for the Ministry of Justice to send warnings to an association which could ultimately lead to dissolution were worded in rather general terms and might give rise to extensive interpretation. Dissolution being the only sanction available under domestic law, the circumstances in which this sanction could be applied should be more precisely specified. The NGO Act contained no detailed rules governing the scope and extent of the Ministry’s power to intervene in the internal management and activities of associations or minimum safeguards concerning, inter alia, the procedure for conducting inspections by the Ministry or the period granted to public associations to eliminate any shortcomings detected. Thus the NGO Act did not provide sufficient guarantees against the risk of abuse and arbitrariness (§60 – 65).

However, the Court noted that these questions were in this case closely related to the broader issue of whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society. The Court considered that in the circumstances of the present case respect for human rights required it to examine this issue as well.

The Court found that the respondent state had failed to demonstrate that the interference met a pressing social need. It noted in particular that

- the association should have been given a genuine chance to put matters right before being dissolved (§§76 and 77);

- while a state may introduce minimum requirements as to the role and structures of associations governing bodies, the authorities should not intervene – as they had done in the present case – in the internal organisational functioning of associations to such a far-reaching extent as to ensure observance by an association of every single formality provided by its own charter (§78);

- the domestic courts had not verified whether the allegations made against the Association by the Ministry of Justice were well-founded; the domestic courts relied on the findings of Ministry officials which they accepted at their face value as constituting true facts, without an independent judicial inquiry (§§79 and 87).

Moreover, the Court found that the interference did not comply with the “proportionality” requirement: it considered that the immediate and permanent dissolution of the association constituted a drastic measure disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Greater flexibility in choosing a more proportionate sanction could be achieved by introducing into domestic law less radical alternative sanctions, such as fines or withdrawal of tax benefits.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of the action plan and/or action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

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

The case concerns the failure to enforce a final judgment of 21/07/2003 ordering the eviction of unlawful occupants from a flat of which the applicant was the lawful tenant (violation of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

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

On 1/12/1998, the applicant was issued an occupancy voucher (entitling him to tenancy right for an indefinite term) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku. At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by M. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDPs”). On an unspecified date in 2003, the applicant lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of M. and his family from the flat. On 21/07/2003 the Yasamal District Court ordered the eviction of the unlawful occupants from the flat. The judgment became final, as no appeal was filed against it, but was never executed.

It appears from the case file that, after the lodging of the present application with the Court, M. lodged a request with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgment of 21/07/2003. He alleged that, as he was an IDP, he had no other place to live but the flat in question. On 2/07/2008 the Yasamal District Court granted M.'s request and ordered the postponement of the execution of the judgment of 21/07/2003 until M. could move to one of the houses recently constructed for temporary settlement of IDPs. Following a series of appeals by the applicant, on 15/03/2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court's decision. On 12/05/2009 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court, before which proceedings were still pending when the European Court gave its judgment.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of the action plan and/or action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités..

- 1 case against Belgium / 1 affaire contre la Belgique

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

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

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

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

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

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

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d'un plan/bilan d'action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

- 6 cases against Bulgaria / 6 affaires contre la Bulgarie

31465/08 Raza, judgment of 11/02/2010, final on 11/05/2010

In this case the European Court found that, should a decision to expel the applicant on grounds of national security taken in 2005 be implemented, there would be a violation of his right to respect for his family life (potential violation of Article 8). The Court considered in this respect that the applicant, despite having the formal possibility of seeking judicial review of the decision to expel him, did not enjoy a minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness on the part of the authorities. The Court noted in particular that the competent court did not have access to the full facts at the origin of the authorities’ assertion that the applicant presented a national security risk, and accordingly could not examine the case meaningfully. The Court noted also that it was questionable whether the domestic court considered itself competent to carry out a proper examination of that assertion. For the same reasons the Court found that the applicant had no effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 8 (violation of Article 13).

The case also concerns the fact that the grounds for the applicant’s detention – action taken with a view of his deportation – was not valid for the whole period of his detention due to the authorities’ failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence (violation of Article 5§1). The case relates finally to the lack of speedy review by a court of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: The applicant was released in 2008.

Information provided by the Bulgarian authorities (letter of 18/06/2010): The expulsion order was not enforced. On 08/06/2010, the applicant asked the State Agency for National Security to cancel it. The applicant may apply for the reopening of the proceedings called into question by the judgment, pursuant to Article 239(6) of the Code of Administrative Procedure.

Additional information is awaited on the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the applicant, and as to whether he had requested reopening of the proceedings.

General measures:

1) Violations of Articles 8 and 13, similar issues have already been raised within the framework of the case of C.G. v. Bulgaria (Al-Nashif group of cases, 50963/99, Section 4.2).

2) Violations of Article 5§§1 and 4: The European Court indicated that legislative changes had intervened since the events at issue in the present case. In particular Article 44 (8) of the Aliens Act now provides that in situations akin to the applicant’s, where deportation is blocked by the failure of a third country to deliver the necessary travel documents, detention may not exceed 18 months (§§36 and 40 of the judgment). Furthermore, in 2009 a new Section 46a was added to this Act, expressly to regulate the possibility of judicial review of detention pending expulsion. According to this provision, the competent administrative court must examine the application for release no later that one month after the proceedings were instituted (§42 of the judgment).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this case at the next examination of the group of cases Al Nashif and others. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point lors du prochain examen du groupe d'affaires Al Nashif et autres.

31230/03 Petkov Petyo, arrêt du 11/02/2010, définitif le 11/05/2010

L’affaire concerne le traitement dégradant auquel a été soumis le requérant pendant sa détention provisoire du fait qu’il a été obligé de porté une cagoule chaque fois qu’il quittait sa cellule, y compris lors des visites de son avocat et de ses proches et lors des audiences dans son affaire (violation de l’article 3). La Cour européenne a relevé en particulier la durée prolongée de cette mesure (entre mai 2002 et juin 2003), l'absence de base légale de celle-ci et son caractère arbitraire, ainsi que l'existence d'un aspect punitif dans son application.

L’affaire concerne également l’absence de voies de recours internes permettant au requérant d'obtenir réparation du préjudice prétendument subi du fait du port de la cagoule et du fait de son isolement carcéral (violation de l’article 13).

L’affaire a trait également à l’illégalité de la détention du requérant entre le prononcé de son acquittement, le 19/06/2003, et l'après-midi du jour suivant (violation de l’article 5§1). Elle concerne, en outre, le fait que les juridictions internes n'ont pas exposé des arguments « pertinents et suffisants » pour maintenir le requérant en détention provisoire pendant la totalité de la période concernée (violation de l'article 5§3).

L’affaire concerne également l’atteinte au droit du requérant à la présomption d’innocence en raison d’une déclaration faite par un haut responsable du parquet lors d'une conférence de presse (violation de l'article 6§2). La Cour a indiqué que cette déclaration était susceptible d'inspirer au public le sentiment que l'intéressé était coupable du crime qui lui était reproché alors que le procès pénal à son encontre était encore pendant.

L’affaire a trait enfin à la rétention du véhicule du requérant comme preuve matérielle au-delà de la date de son acquittement (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard lors de leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

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

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

Issues concerning the appointment of counsel have been raised in the framework of the Raykov case (35185/03) (1100th meeting, December 2010).

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

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

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH) in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

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

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

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

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

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH) in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

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

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

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

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH) in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

69855/01 Popov Lyubomir, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to prolonged delays on the part of the authorities in executing judgments in his favour requiring the restitution of, or compensation for plots of land which had been nationalised (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Between 1992 and 1995, the applicant applied for and received a series of restitution or compensation decisions in his favour, under the 1991 Agricultural Land Act. There were delays in the execution of some of these decisions, some of which took 8 to 12 years to be executed and as of 2006, after 13 years, the applicant was still awaiting the execution of compensation decisions with respect two plots of land. There was no suggestion that the applicant would not receive compensation, but the European Court was of the view that it was called upon to examine the delay in providing it.

The European Court noted that no specific justification was offered for the delays and that the relevant legislation provided no specific time-limit for paying compensation.

The European Court considered in particular that the applicant had been left in a state of lengthy uncertainty as to whether he would receive the plots of land or compensation in question. The Court considered that the delays in providing compensation amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, but that given the absence of a time-limit established by law the interference was lawful and might have pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest, namely to protect the rights of others, but failed to strike a fair balance between these considerations and the interest of the applicant.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan/action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 3 cases against Croatia / 3 affaires contre la Croatie

29889/04 Vanjak, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010, rectified on 27/04/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in 1996. First, the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment on statements given to the police by two witnesses and relied on in the judgments of the disciplinary courts (§56). Secondly, the national courts failed to respond to the applicant’s objection regarding the circumstances of his alleged confession to the police, in particular that he had been questioned the whole night and not allowed to contact a lawyer. The national courts also failed to provide reasons for accepting such a confession, which the applicant subsequently denied, as being accurate and genuine (§61) (violation of Article 6§1).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

20100/06 Lisica, judgment of 25/02/2010, final on 25/05/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that the domestic courts used certain evidence against him, which had been obtained during a search without a search warrant and during which he had been given no opportunity to be present (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the manner in which this evidence was used in the proceedings had an effect on the proceedings as a whole resulting in their falling short of the requirements of a fair trial.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

25904/06 Lesjak, judgment of 18/02/2010, final on 18/05/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that both civil and administrative courts refused to examine the merits of his case (violation of Article 6§1). The applicant was dismissed from his employment without a formal decision. A civil action brought against his former employer was, after a conflict of jurisdiction, eventually declared inadmissible by the Administrative Court,.which also failed to apply to the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction with the ordinary courts.

The European Court noted that the applicant was put in an impossible situation, in which his action was dealt with by ordinary courts and the Administrative Court but neither ruled on the lawfulness of the termination of his employment (§41).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités..

- 1 case against Cyprus / 1 affaire contre Chypre

24407/04 Onoufriou, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

This case concerns degrading treatment of the applicant during detention in solitary confinement in 2003, the violation of his right to private and family life due to the limitation of visiting rights and monitoring of correspondence, and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13).

The applicant was arrested on 21/09/2003 for failing to return to prison following 24 hours’ leave. He was transferred to the maximum-security wing of Nicosia Central Prison and placed in solitary confinement until 07/11/2003 despite instructions of the Senior Prison Inspector on 31/10/2003 to return him to normal detention.

The European Court held that the applicant’s solitary confinement was attended by no procedural safeguards to protect against arbitrary application of excessively restrictive conditions of detention (§73 of the judgment). Furthermore, the stringent custodial regime to which he was subjected in solitary confinement, including the prohibition of visits, and the material conditions in which he was detained, amounted to degrading treatment (§§76-79 of the judgment).

The Court also held that neither the suspension of the applicant’s right to visits nor the monitoring of his correspondence while he was in solitary confinement were in accordance with the law. Finally, the Court held that there was no remedy under the national system whereby the applicant might complain of these matters, which was effective in the sense that it could prevent the alleged violation from occurring or continuing, or could have afforded him redress.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point au plus tard lors de leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d'un plan d'action / bilan d'action à fournir par les autorités.

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

25965/04 Rantsev, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

DH-DD(2010)376E

The case concerns human trafficking suffered by the applicant’s daughter from Russia to Cyprus and her subsequent death in Cyprus.

The European Court found that the Cypriot authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation of the death of the applicant’s daughter, which should included an assessment of the allegation of human trafficking (violation of Article 2). It also concluded that the daughter’s detention by the Cypriot authorities had been unlawful and arbitrary (violation of Article 5(1)).

Having regard to the trafficking and the exploitation of human beings, the Court found first that Cypriot law provided no legal or administrative framework to ensure the protection of the applicant’s daughter and that in the circumstances of the case the authorities had failed to take appropriate measures and secondly that the Russian authorities had failed in their positive obligation to enquire into the allegations of human trafficking in this case (violations of Article 4).

Human Trafficking

The European Court considered that there can be no doubt that trafficking threatens the human dignity and fundamental freedoms of its victims and cannot be considered compatible with a democratic society and the values expounded in the Convention. The Court therefore concluded that trafficking, within the meaning of Article 4(a) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking (CETS No. 197)) falls within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention (§282).

In arriving at its conclusion, the European Court noted that trafficking in human beings as a global phenomenon has increased significantly in recent years. It made reference to a number of international and European instruments, in particular the Conclusion of the UN Palermo Protocol in 2000 and the Anti-Trafficking Convention in 2005, which demonstrate the increasing recognition at international level of the prevalence of trafficking and the need for measure to combat it (§278).

The explanatory report to the Anti-Trafficking Convention trafficking states in paragraphs 3 and 4 that “Trafficking in human beings, with the entrapment of its victims, is the modern form of the old, worldwide slave trade. It treats human beings as a commodity to be bought and sold, and to be put to forced labour … for a pittance or nothing at all. …. To be effective a strategy for combating trafficking in human beings must adopt a multi-disciplinary approach incorporating prevention, protection of human rights of victims and prosecution of traffickers ….” (§161 of the judgment).

Unilateral Declaration by Cyprus

On 10/04/2009, the Cypriot authorities made a unilateral declaration acknowledging violations of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5. However, the European Court considered that given the serious nature of the violations, the acute nature of the problem in Cyprus, the paucity of case-law on the interpretation of Article 4 of the Convention in the context of trafficking cases and the duty on the Court to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires the continued of the examination of the case (§202).

• The Cypriot authorities reacted promptly to the judgment and on 29/06/2010 submitted a detailed action plan and action report on the individual and general measures, which includes a number of significant legislative and practical measures that have already been taken. The full detail of the measures is set out in document (DH-DD(2010)376).

• The Russian authorities are invited to present an action plan/action report.

The Deputies,

1. recalled that this judgment concerns the alleged trafficking of the applicant’s daughter from the Russian Federation to Cyprus and the European Court's finding that trafficking in human beings threatens the human dignity and fundamental freedoms of its victims and cannot be considered compatible with a democratic society and the values expounded in the Convention and that trafficking itself, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the UN Palermo Protocol1 and Article 4(1) of the Anti-Trafficking Convention2 falls within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention;

2. recalled that the European Court in particular found a violation of Article 2, in its procedural aspect and Articles 4 and 5 in respect of Cyprus and a violation of Article 4, in its procedural aspect in respect of the Russian Federation;

As regards individual measures

3. noted that prior to the European Court’s judgment, the Cypriot Council of Ministers appointed an independent committee headed by the President of the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints Against the Police to investigate Ms Rantseva’s death including the question of whether there was any link between her death and allegations of trafficking;

4. noted that in the meantime the Russian authorities opened a single criminal investigation into the Ms Rantseva’s death and in the framework of this investigation will examine the allegations of trafficking, including the circumstances of Ms Rantseva’s recruitment;

5. stressed the manifest importance of close co-operation between Cypriot and Russian authorities in this respect with a view to ensuring that an effective investigation aimed at identification and punishment of those responsible is carried out;

As regards general measures

6. welcomed the information presented by the Cypriot authorities and in particular confirmation that the system of “artiste” visas has been abolished and noted that detailed information has been presented by the Cypriot authorities on the general measures;

7. took note with interest of the information provided by the Russian authorities on the existing national mechanisms to prevent and to combat trafficking of human beings;

8. noted that the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) will visit Cyprus this autumn, with a view to having their report on Cyprus adopted in the first quarter of 2011;

9. decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (November-December 2010) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on the individual and general measures and in the light of the assessment to be made by the Secretariat.

25965/04 Rantsev, arrêt du 07/01/2010, définitif le 04/04/2010

DH-DD(2010)376E

L’affaire concerne le trafic d’êtres humains subi par la fille du requérant, de la Fédération de Russie à Chypre, et son décès intervenu par la suite à Chypre.

La Cour européenne a estimé que les autorités chypriotes avaient manqué à leur obligation de conduire une enquête effective sur le décès de la fille du requérant, enquête qui aurait dû comprendre une évaluation des allégations de trafic d’êtres humains (violation de l’article 2). Elle a en outre conclu à la détention illégale et arbitraire de la requérante par les autorités chypriotes (violation de l’article 5§1).

Sur la question du trafic et de la l’exploitation d’êtres humains, la Cour a conclu d’une part que la législation chypriote n’avait pas offert de cadre législatif et administratif approprié pour protéger la fille du requérant et que les autorités chypriotes n’avaient pas pris de mesures appropriées dans le cas d’espèce, et d’autre part que les autorités russes avaient manqué à leur obligation positive d’enquêter sur les allégations de trafic dans cette affaire (violations de l’article 4).

La traite et l’exploitation d’êtres humains

La Cour européenne a indiqué que la traite d’êtres humains portait indubitablement atteinte à la dignité humaine et aux libertés fondamentales de ses victimes, et ne pouvait être considérée comme compatible avec la notion de société démocratique et les valeurs contenues dans la Convention. La Cour a par conséquent conclu que le trafic au sens de l’article 4a de la Convention du Conseil de l'Europe sur la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains (STCE n° 197) relevait du champ d’application de l’article 4 de la Convention européenne (§82).

Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, la Cour européenne a relevé que le trafic d’êtres humains, en tant que phénomène global, avait augmenté de manière significative ces dernières années. La Cour s’est référée à un certain nombre d’instruments internationaux et européens, en particulier au Protocole de Palerme des Nations Unies de 2000, et à la Convention de 2005 précitée du Conseil de l’Europe, démontrant la reconnaissance croissante au niveau international de la prédominance du trafic et de la nécessité de le combattre (§278).

Le rapport explicatif de la Convention de 2005 indique en ses paragraphes 3 et 4 : « La traite des êtres humains, parce qu’elle prend au piège ses victimes, est la forme moderne du commerce mondial des esclaves. Les êtres humains sont considérés comme des marchandises à acheter et à vendre, que l'on force à travailler […] pour des salaires de misère voire pour rien du tout. Si l’on veut qu’elle soit efficace, la stratégie de lutte contre la traite des êtres humains doit être fondée sur une approche multidisciplinaire qui passe à la fois par la prévention, la protection des droits de la personne humaine des victimes et la poursuite des trafiquants [..] (§161 de l’arrêt).

Déclaration unilatérale de Chypre

Le 10/04/2009, les autorités chypriotes ont déposé une déclaration unilatérale reconnaissant la violation des articles 2,3, 4 et 5. La Cour européenne a néanmoins estimé que le respect des droits de l’homme tel que défini par la Convention nécessitait de poursuivre l’examen de cette affaire, étant donné la gravité des violations, l’importance aigue de ce problème à Chypre, l’absence de jurisprudence sur l’interprétation de l’article 4 de la Convention dans le contexte d’affaires de trafic d’êtres humains et le devoir de la Cour de clarifier, protéger et développer les règles instituées par la Convention, le respect des Droits de l'Homme tels que définis à la Convention requiert la poursuite de l'examen de cette affaire (§202).

• Les autorités chypriotes ont réagi promptement à l’arrêt et le 29/06/2010 ont soumis un plan d’action / bilan d’action détaillé sur les mesures individuelles et générales, qui détaille les mesures significatives déjà prises, d’ordre pratique et législatif (voir DH-DD(2010)376).

• Les autorités russes sont invitées à présenter un plan/bilan d’action.

Les Délégués,

1. rappellent que l’arrêt concerne les allégations de traite de la fille du requérant de la Fédération de Russie vers Chypre et le constat de la Cour européenne selon lequel la traite des êtres humains porte atteinte à la dignité humaine et aux libertés fondamentales de ses victimes et ne peut être considérée comme compatible avec la notion de société démocratique ni avec les valeurs énoncées dans la Convention, et que la traite proprement dite, au sens de l’article 3a du Protocole de Palerme3 adopté par les Nations Unies et de l’article 4a de la Convention sur la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains4, relève du champ d'application de l’article 4 de la Convention.

2. rappellent que la Cour européenne a constaté en particulier une violation de l’article 2, dans sa dimension procédurale, et une violation des articles 4 et 5 en ce qui concerne Chypre et une violation de l’article 4, dans sa dimension procédurale, en ce qui concerne la Fédération de Russie ;

Concernant les mesures de caractère individuel

3. notent qu’avant l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, le Conseil des Ministres chypriote a nommé une commission indépendante, à la tête de laquelle se trouve le Président de l’Autorité indépendante chargée d’enquêter sur les allégations et les plaintes concernant la police, pour enquêter sur le décès de Mme Rantseva et voir s’il existe un lien entre son décès et les allégations de traite ;

4. notent qu’entre-temps les autorités russes ont ouvert une seule enquête criminelle sur le décès de Mme Rantseva et, dans le cadre de cette enquête, examineront les allégations de traite, y compris les conditions dans lesquelles Mme Rantseva a été recrutée ;

5. soulignent l’importance particulière d’une coopération étroite entre les autorités chypriotes et russes à ce sujet en vue de garantir une enquête efficace pour identifier et sanctionner les responsables ;

Concernant les mesures de caractère général

6. se félicitent des informations présentées par les autorités chypriotes et en particulier de la confirmation de la suppression du système des visas « d’artistes » et notent que des informations détaillées ont été présentées par les autorités chypriotes au sujet des mesures de caractère général ;

7. prennent note avec intérêt des informations communiquées par les autorités russes sur les mécanismes nationaux qui existent pour prévenir et combattre la traite des êtres humains ;

8. notent que le Groupe d’experts sur la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains (GRETA) se rendra à Chypre cet automne de manière à ce que son rapport sur ce pays soit adopté au premier trimestre de 2011 ;

9. décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point lors de leur 1100e réunion (novembre-décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière des informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures de caractère individuel et général et de l’évaluation à préparer par le Secrétariat.

- 1 case against Finland / 1 affaire contre la Finlande

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

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that the Supreme Court, acting as the first appellate court, resolved the applicant’s case inadequately without holding an oral hearing (violation of Article 6§1).

On 8/07/1998 the applicant was apprehended as a suspect in a pre-trial investigation and was charged with a bribery violation and alternatively with a negligent violation of official duty. On 22/06/2000, the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant. On 13/06/2002, the Supreme Court, on the prosecutor’s appeal and without holding an oral hearing, overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment and convicted the applicant of a bribery violation. The European Court found that the applicant and his counsel had been deprived of an opportunity, to react either in writing or orally, to the fact that the Supreme Court was going to convict the applicant. The European Court considered that in the present case the Supreme Court acted as the first appellate court, which could not, as a matter of a fair trial, properly examine the issues to be determined without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicant in person. In the given circumstances, the Supreme Court could not adequately resolve the applicant’s case without holding and oral hearing.

The case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant (see the Kangasluoma group 48339/99, Section 4.2).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan/action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 3 cases against France / 3 affaires contre la France

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

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

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

Ces affaires concernent l’atteinte au droits des requérants au respect de leur bien en raison de l’inaction des autorités dans l’exécution de mesures d’expulsion relatives à leurs terrains illégalement occupés par des membres de la Coordination rurale puis du Syndicat corse de l’agriculture (R.P.), un agriculteur corse soutenu par des militants nationalistes (Barret et Sirjean) et des membres du centre des jeunes agriculteurs de Haute-Corse (Fernandez et autres) (violations de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1). Des mesures judiciaires d’expulsion avaient été prononcées à l’encontre des occupants sans titre, respectivement le 9/04/1998 (R.P.), le 22/11/2000 (Barret et Sirjean) et le 19/04/1983 (Fernandez et autres).

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

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ces points à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d'un plan/bilan d'action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

- 1 case against Georgie / 1 affaire contre la Géorgie

7975/06 Klaus et Iouri Kiladze, arrêt du 2/02/2010, définitif le 2/05/2010

L’affaire concerne une atteinte au droit des requérants au respect de leurs biens (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n°1). Les requérants n’ont jamais pu recevoir les indemnités auxquelles leur statut de victime des répressions politiques leur donnait droit, en raison de l’inactivité totale de l’Etat pour que les textes d’application de la loi du 11/12/1997 sur le statut de victime des répressions politiques soient adoptés.

Les requérants sont deux frères dont le père a été jugé et fusillé en octobre 1937 pour « sabotage et terreur » et dont la mère a été déportée dans un camp du Goulag où elle est restée de novembre 1938 à 1945. Eux-mêmes ont été placés dans un centre pour enfants sans famille durant plusieurs années. Par une décision définitive en date du 2/09/1998 du tribunal de 1° instance de Sabourthalo de Tbilissi, les requérants se sont vus reconnaître le statut de victime des répressions politiques.

Le 15/03/2005 les requérants, se fondant sur l'article 9 de la loi du 11/12/1997 relative à la reconnaissance du statut de victime des répressions politiques aux ressortissants géorgiens et à la protection sociale des réprimés, introduisirent devant les tribunaux nationaux, une demande de compensation du dommage subi. Les tribunaux reconnurent que la situation des requérants leur donnait droit à une indemnisation pécuniaire du dommage moral mais que les textes d’application de la loi du 11/12/1997 sur le statut de victime des répressions politiques n’étant pas adoptés, leur demande ne pouvait être accueillie (décision de la Cour suprême du 2/11/2005).

Rappelant la résolution Res(2004)3 du 12/05/2004 sur les arrêts qui révèlent un problème structurel sous-jacent, la Cour a relevé que le problème de vide législatif soulevé par cette affaire ne concernait pas seulement les requérants, mais entre 600 et 16 000 personnes et que, par conséquent, des mesures législatives, administratives et budgétaires devaient être prises rapidement afin que les personnes visées par l'article 9 de la loi du 11/12/1997 puissent bénéficier effectivement de leur droit garanti par cette disposition.

Elle a dit en outre que, si ces mesures faisaient toujours défaut dans les six mois à compter du jour où l'arrêt sera devenu définitif conformément à l'article 44 § 2 de la Convention, l'Etat défendeur devrait verser à chacun des requérants, 4 000 EUR (quatre mille euros, à convertir en laris géorgiens au taux applicable à la date du règlement) pour dommage moral plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d'impôt sur lesdites sommes. 

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point lors de leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

- 2 cases against Germany / 2 affaires contre l'Allemagne

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

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

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d'un plan d'action / bilan d'action à fournir par les autorités.

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d'un plan d'action / bilan d'action à fournir par les autorités.

- 1 case against Greece / 1 affaire contre la Grèce

44769/07 Société anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte, judgment of 05/11/2009, final on 10/05/2010

The case concerns the fact that in 1996, land belonging to the applicant company was subject to compulsory sale by auction for the purposes of recovering a debt owed to a bank. The applicant company complained of the conditions in which the notice announcing the auction was served on its legal representative and of the fact that its application to have the auction set aside was dismissed as out of time.

The European Court found a disproportionate limitation of the applicant company's right of access to a court in that the Court of Cassation, despite admitting in 2007 that the decision to sell its property by auction had been notified to the applicant in an invalid manner, nevertheless dismissed the company’s application for annulment of the auction as out of time, because it had not declared that it had no knowledge, and could not possibly have had knowledge of the notification (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court also found that these conditions of notification of the decision at issue, combined with the fact that the applicant company had been deprived of its property without any possibility to react against the auction procedure (as the remedy was dismissed as inadmissible) infringed the fair balance between the protection of its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions and the requirements of the general interest (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court reserved the application of Article 41 as a whole.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010 (DH), in the light of an action plan/ action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 1 case against Lithuania / 1 affaire contre la Lituanie

35624/04 Šulcas, judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (eight years and nine months), and the lack of a domestic remedy whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 13).

The case presents similarities to the Girdauskas group of cases (Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)127), but this is the first case in which the European Court also found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d'un plan d'action / bilan d'action à fournir par les autorités.

- 3 cases against Moldova / 3 affaires contre la Moldova

33134/03 Pădureţ, judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

The case concerns torture inflicted on the applicant, a 21-year old student, while in police custody and the lack of an effective investigation in this respect (violation of substantial and procedural aspects of Article 3).

The European Court particularly noted that the investigation lasted nearly 6 years (from June 2000 to March 2006) and that one of the alleged perpetrators was never subject to investigation proceedings. It further noted that criminal proceedings were initiated under Article 101 of the old Criminal Code (causing bodily harm) instead of Article 101-1 (torture), without any explanation as to the choice of lesser offence. This choice made it possible to relieve the guilty officer from criminal responsibility due to the expiry of the limitation period. In this respect, the European Court observed that no limitation period should apply to acts of ill-treatment by a state agent (§75).

Finally, the European Court noted with serious concern that in Moldova torture was considered an “average-level crime”, to be distinguished from more serious forms of crime and thus warranting reduced sentences. The Court held that this position was absolutely incompatible with the obligations resulting from Article 3 of the Convention, given the extreme seriousness of the crime of torture. The Court concluded that the Moldovan authorities had failed fully to denounce the practice of ill-treatment by law-enforcement agencies, adding to the impression that the legislation adopted to prevent and punish acts of ill-treatment was not given full preventive effect (§77). The Court also noted the absence of any effort to develop modern methods of investigation and a substantial delay in adopting a code of ethics for the police (adopted almost four years after the CPT inquiry).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

12444/05 Leva, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

The case concerns a number of violations related to the applicants’ arrest in November 2004 by officers of the Centre for Fighting Organised Crime and Corruption (“CFECC”) and their subsequent pre-trial detention, in particular:

- the arrest and detention of the applicants on remand without reasonable suspicion of their having committed an offence (violations of Article 5§1 for both applicants);

- the authorities’ failure to inform them of additional charges against them (violation of Article 5§2 for both applicants);

- the authorities’ failure to ensure the confidentiality of lawyer-client communication because of the glass partition in the CFECC remand centre (violation of Article 5§4).

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

General measures:

1) As regards the applicants’ arrest without reasonable suspicion and the lack of confidentiality of lawyer-client communication at the CFECC remand centre:

These issues are being examined in the Şarban group of cases (3456/05, 1100th meeting, December 2010) (see in particular the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2009)42rev).

2) As regards the authorities’ failure to inform the applicants about additional charges brought against them

• An action plan/action report is awaited.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

7/08 Tănase, judgment of 27/04/2010 – Grand Chamber

The case concerns a violation of applicant’s right to stand as a candidate in free elections and to take his seat in Parliament if elected, thus ensuring the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature (violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1). The violation resulted from the adoption in 2003 of Law No. 273, which, inter alia, prohibied Moldovan nationals holding dual citizenship from becoming members of Parliament. The applicant, holding dual Moldovan and Romanian nationality was candidate for an opposition party.

The European Court found that the ban on the election of persons holding multiple citizenship imposed by Law No. 273 placed a disproportionate general restriction on electoral rights. It stated that there could be other means to achieve the legitimate aim of protecting Moldovan laws, institutions and national security, e.g. through imposing sanctions for illegal conduct, which would have a preventive effect.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 7 cases against Poland / 7 affaires contre la Pologne

28975/04 Wasilewska and Kałucka, judgment of 23/02/2010, final on 23/05/2010

This case concerns the use of lethal force during a police operation in August 2002 resulting in the death of the applicants’ boyfriend and son (substantive violation of Article 2).

The European Court found that the degree of force used by the police and the manner in which the police responded to the victim’s attempted escape could not be considered proportionate. Equally, the Court stressed that the operation was not planned so as to minimise recourse to lethal force (§57).

This case concerns also the lack of an effective criminal investigation into the death (procedural violation of Article 2). In particular, the European Court found that the need to use such a high level of force was not addressed by the investigating authorities and that there had been no thorough and effective investigation (§63).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

48/03 Wierzbicki Andrzej, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

This case concerns inadequate medical care provided to the applicant in detention (violation of Article 3).

The applicant, who was suffering from serious diabetes and chronic inflammation of pancreas and stomach, was suspected of having committed financial crimes. In 2002, he was arrested and put into pre-trial detention. A general practitioner, an expert in the detention centre’s hospital, considered his state of health not sufficiently serious to justify his release from detention. The applicant lodged a number of appeals and complaints against his detention, based on his state of health. After three months, the regional prosecutor asked for another expert medical examination and decided to release him under police surveillance.

The European Court found that the authorities had failed to act with due diligence as regards the full evaluation of the applicant’s state of health (§60). They also had failed to ensure the appropriate medical treatment and diet required by the applicant’s state of health (§63).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the next examination of the Kaprykowski group of cases. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point lors du prochain examen du groupe d'affaires Kaprykowski.

34568/08 Dąbrowska, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to respect for family life due to the failure of Polish authorities to take immediate and effective steps to enforce decisions granting her custodial rights in respect of her son (violation of the Article 8).

The applicant was granted sole custody of her son (then aged 8) by an interim order of 24/05/2006, issued by the Białystok District Court during divorce proceeding. Her rights were confirmed by the final divorce judgment of 10/09/2007, upheld by the Białystok Court of Appeal on 28/02/2008. Despite the applicant’s numerous complaints, these decisions were not respected by the father, nor duly enforced by the appointed guardians. Although the Białystok Regional Court acknowledged on several occasions that the appointed guardians had acted slowly, ineffectively or with a lack of diligence, no action had been taken to overcome these shortcomings. On 2/04/2009, the authorities decided to legalise the existing status quo and granted the applicant’s husband temporary custody of the son.

The European Court found that the delay and the ineffective enforcement of a binding domestic decisions were caused to a large extent by the authorities' improper handling of the case.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

22933/02 Frasik, judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

24023/03 Jaremowicz, judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

These cases concern the refusal of Polish courts to allow the applicants to marry in while detained in prison (violations of Article 12).

The applicants Rafał Frasik and Paweł Jaremowicz were both serving prison sentences – Mr Frasik for rape and threatening his long-term partner and Mr Jaremowicz for attempted burglary – when they asked the competent courts, in April 2001 and June 2003 respectively to allow them to marry in prison.

In 2001 the trial court refused Mr Frasik's request, as it wished to prevent his fiancé from exercising her marital right not to testify against him. In Mr Jaremowicz’s case, in June 2003 the applicant and another prisoner asked the regional court to allow them to marry each other. This was refused on the grounds that they had become “acquainted illegally in prison” and their relationship had been “very superficial” as they had mostly communicated by sending messages, often without visual contact.

The European Court found that the trial judges failed to strike a fair balance between the various public and individual interests at stake in a manner compatible with the Convention. As a result, the measures applied had impaired the very essence of the applicants’ rights to marry.

These cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy (violations of Article 13). In particular, Mr Frasik’s case concerns the lack of appropriate procedure whereby the applicant could appeal against or otherwise challenge the decision denying him his right to marry in detention. In the context of Mr Jaremovicz’s case, even though the applicant had obtained leave to marry some five months after his request, the Court found that this delay was excessive and could not be said to have offered the applicant the requisite relief, i.e. a prompt decision on the substance of his Convention claim.

In Mr Frasik’s case the Court also found the excessive length and delay in examination of his appeals against his detention (violation of Article 5§4) (for details, see the Baranowski case, 28358/95, Section 6.2).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ces points au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

571/04 Kubaszewski, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 02/05/2010

This case concerns an infringement of a local politician’s right to freedom of expression in that he was required to publish an apology for allegations made about the Municipality’s public spending during a municipal meeting (violation of Article 10). During a session of the Kleczew Municipal Council, of which he was a member, the applicant expressed doubts concerning certain investments, asking inter alia whether this manner of public spending did not amount to money laundering. Seven members of the Municipal Board lodged a civil claim against the applicant. The domestic courts found that the allusion to money laundering had gone beyond the limits of permissible criticism and ordered the applicant to publish an apology in a newspaper and to apologise at the Municipal Council’s next session.

The European Court held that the domestic courts had failed to take into account the crucial importance of free political debate in a democratic society (§47). The courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the protection of politicians’ rights and an elected representative’s right to freedom of expression (§48), the interference in the applicant’s freedom of expression was therefore disproportionate. According to the European Court, the Council’s session had been the appropriate place to discuss any irregularities concerning the public spending. Moreover, the allegations were part of a political debate and had not been directed against any specific person.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

10847/02 Miernicki, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 10/05/2010

This case concerns the unlawful nature of a decision reviewing the applicant’s detention on remand, as it was not taken in accordance with a procedure prescribed by national law (violation of Article 5§1).

The European Court held that the bench of three judges of the Court of Appeal included a judge who had given the first-instance decision, in breach of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (§§42,45-47 of the judgment).

This case also concerns the Polish authorities’ censorship of the applicant’s correspondence in 2002 (violation of Article 8) (see Klamecki No. 2, 31583/96, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 1 case against Portugal / 1 affaire contre le Portugal

16983/06 Laranjeira Marques da Silva, judgment of 19/01/2010, final on 19/04/2010

The case concerns the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, a journalist, due to his conviction in 2005 for defamation and breach of judicial secrecy, following the publication of an article on criminal proceedings against a person who was both a doctor and a politician (violations of Article 10).

The European Court found that the convictions, both for violation of judicial secrecy and for defamation, constituted a disproportionate interference in the applicant’s right to freedom of expression which did not correspond to any “compelling social need” (§§44,56 of the judgment). The Article 10 issue is being dealt with in the Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A group of cases. (11182/03, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

The case also concerns the unfairness of the appeal proceedings, in that the Court of Appeal failed rule on the applicant’s claim of that the aggravating circumstance applied in its decision by the first-instance court did not apply at appeal (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court stated that the issue raised by the applicant of non-applicability of the aggravating circumstance under Article 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required a specific and explicit response by the Court of Appeal (§24 of the judgment).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 7 cases against Romania / 7 affaires contre la Roumanie

32146/05 Lazăr Eugenia, arrêt du 16/02/2010, définitif le 16/05/2010

L’affaire concerne le défaut d’enquête effective sur le décès du fils de la requérante à l’hôpital, principalement en raison de l’insuffisance des règles encadrant les expertises médico-légales (violation de l’article 2 sous son volet procédural).

La Cour européenne a relevé que la procédure s’était étalée sur environ quatre ans et cinq mois au total pour deux degrés de juridiction, dont près de quatre ans pour la seule enquête menée par le parquet, ce qui ne satisfaisait pas à l’exigence d’un prompt examen de l’affaire.

Concernant l’effectivité de l’enquête pénale, les autorités n'ont jamais répondu à la question essentielle de savoir si l'asphyxie, à l'origine du décès du fils de la requérante, était survenue accidentellement pendant la trachéotomie qui avait été pratiquée ou si elle résultait du retard à réaliser cette opération, principalement à cause du manque de coopération des experts médico-légaux avec les organes d’enquête et de l’absence de motivation des avis médico-légaux. Ainsi, bien que le parquet ait essayé d'éclaircir ces questions, toutes ses tentatives se sont heurtées à la résistance des établissements médico-légaux. Ces derniers ont refusé de répondre aux questions en renvoyant aux règles spéciales qui, à leurs yeux, les empêchaient d'accepter de nouvelles missions d'expertise ordonnées par le parquet dès lors qu'un avis avait été rendu par l'autorité nationale suprême en matière d'expertise médico-légale et/ou qu'aucun élément nouveau n'était apparu.

Concernant les autres types de recours existants à l’époque des faits au niveau national, la Cour a souligné le formalisme excessif dont avaient fait preuve les autorités concernant la procédure disciplinaire engagée par la requérante. Enfin, une action civile en dommages-intérêts était très compromise en l’absence de reconnaissance de faute médicale.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

22465/03 Sandru et autres, arrêt du 8/12/2009, définitif le 10/05/2010

L’affaire concerne le défaut d’enquête effective suite à la violente répression des manifestations anticommunistes de décembre 1989 à Timişoara (violation de l’article 2 sous son volet procédural).

Deux des requérants et l'époux d’une requérante qui participaient à ces manifestations, ont été grièvement blessés par balles, le frère d’une autre requérante a été tué par balle.

La Cour européenne a relevé que la procédure ouverte en janvier 1990 n’avait pris fin qu’en octobre 2008. Elle a noté que la phase d’enquête avait été confiée aux procureurs militaires qui étaient, au même titre que les accusés, des militaires soumis au principe de la hiérarchie et donc aux accusés qui, en 1990-1991, étaient respectivement Ministre de l’Intérieur et Ministre de la Défense. La Cour a constaté en outre, une inactivité totale du parquet entre avril 1990 et mars 1996. La Cour a relevé des ajournements répétés et de longs délais entre les audiences des tribunaux. Si la première procédure a pris fin avec l’arrêt du 25/02/2000 de la Cour suprême de Justice, l’ensemble de la procédure a ensuite été mis à néant par un recours en annulation du procureur général en faveur des condamnés, repoussant la solution définitive de l'affaire d'encore plus de huit ans.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

40933/02 Al-Agha, arrêt du 12/01/2010, définitif le 12/04/2010

L'affaire concerne les mauvais traitements subis par le requérant, résultant des conditions de vie au centre de rétention de l’aéroport de Bucarest de février 2000 à septembre 2002 (violation de l’article 3).

L'affaire concerne également la détention illégale du requérant au centre de rétention de février 2000 à juillet 2003 (violation de l’article 5§1) et l’absence d'accès à un tribunal pour contester la légalité de sa détention (violation de l'article 5§4).

Elle a enfin trait à l’absence de possibilité d’obtenir réparation pour une privation de liberté contraire à l’article 5 de la Convention (violation de l’article 5§5).

Le requérant a été libéré du centre de rétention en juillet 2003.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point lors de leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

48107/99 Paroisse Greco Catholique Sâmbata Bihor, arrêt du 12/01/2010, définitif le 12/04/2010

L'affaire concerne une atteinte au droit d’accès de l’église requérante à un tribunal en raison du refus des juridictions nationales de statuer sur son litige l’opposant à l’Eglise orthodoxe et portant sur l’usage partagé d’un édifice religieux (violation de l’article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a constaté que par arrêt définitif du 12/01/1998, la cour d’appel avait rejeté l'action de la requérante en se fondant sur l'article 3 du décret-loi no 126/1990, applicable au moment des faits, au motif que les litiges portant sur un droit de propriété ou d'usage d'un édifice religieux échappaient à la compétence des tribunaux et étaient de la compétence exclusive des commissions mixtes constituées des représentants des communautés religieuses gréco catholique et orthodoxe.

L'affaire concerne également la discrimination subie par la requérante dans l’exercice de son droit d’accès à un tribunal du fait d’une jurisprudence contradictoire des tribunaux nationaux en la matière (violation de l’article 14 combiné avec l’article 6§1).

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

26732/03 Antica et la société « R », arrêt du 02/03/2010, définitif le 02/06/2010

L’affaire concerne l’absence de motivation des décisions judiciaires établissant la responsabilité civile délictuelle des requérants, un journaliste et une maison d’édition, pour la publication d’un article qui aurait lésé la réputation d’un tiers (violation de l’article 6§1).

A cet égard, la Cour européenne a relevé que, dans sa décision du 13/02/2003, le tribunal d’appel n’avait pas expliqué pourquoi il avait écarté un constat du parquet établissant que le premier requérant n’était pas l’auteur de l’article. La Cour a indiqué en outre, que les tribunaux internes ne s’étaient pas prononcés sur les moyens de preuve visant à étayer l’absence de responsabilité de M. Antica.

L’affaire a trait également à l’atteinte au droit à la liberté d’expression de la maison d’édition en raison de l’absence de motivation de sa condamnation au civil et au vu du montant disproportionné des dommages-intérêts qu’elle a été condamnée à payer (violation de l’article 10).

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard lors de leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

78039/01 Grosaru, arrêt du 02/03/2010, définitif le 02/06/2010

L’affaire concerne le refus d’attribuer un mandat de député en vertu d’une loi électorale manquant de clarté et l’absence de recours effectif pour s’en plaindre (violation de l’article 3 du Protocol n° 1 pris isolément et combiné avec l’article 13). Le requérant avait été candidat aux élections législatives de novembre 2000, visant le siège revenant à la minorité italienne de Roumanie.

La Cour européenne a relevé tout d’abord le manque de clarté de la loi électorale de 1992, s’agissant des modalités à suivre pour l’attribution du mandat parlementaire revenant à une organisation représentant une minorité nationale. Cette loi prévoyait en effet l’attribution du siège au candidat réunissant le plus grand nombre de voix, mais ne précisait pas s’il s’agissait du plus grand nombre de voix au niveau national ou au niveau d’une circonscription électorale. Ce manque de clarté des règles électorales imposait aux autorités roumaines d’être prudentes dans leur interprétation.

Or, le bureau électoral central n’a pas indiqué pourquoi il a choisi d’attribuer le siège de député à la candidate ayant la plus forte représentativité territoriale et non nationale, ni si sa décision correspondait à une pratique déjà établie.

La Cour a examiné ensuite la question de l’impartialité des organes chargés d’examiner la contestation du requérant. Premièrement, elle a noté que le bureau électoral central et la commission de validation de la Chambre des députés qui avait rejeté la contestation du requérant, étaient composés d’un grand nombre de représentants de partis politiques et ne paraissaient donc pas fournir de gages suffisants d’impartialité. Deuxièmement, la Cour a noté qu’aucun tribunal national ne s’était prononcé sur l’interprétation de la disposition légale litigieuse, ce qui eût pourtant été important, tel que cela ressort non seulement de sa jurisprudence, mais aussi des travaux de la Commission de Venise et d’une analyse de droit comparé.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard lors de leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

15636/04 Moculescu, arrêt du 02/03/2010, définitif le 02/06/2010

L’affaire concerne l’impossibilité pour la requérante d’obtenir la jouissance de son terrain, de mars 2002 à mai 2003, en raison d’un droit de superficie à titre gratuit reconnu à une société coopérative (violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

La Cour européenne a relevé que la reconnaissance du droit de superficie litigieux en faveur de la société coopérative avait une base légale en droit interne, à savoir la loi no 109/1996. Toutefois, la Cour a constaté que cette loi excluait complètement toute possibilité de mise en balance des intérêts de la communauté et ceux des propriétaires dont les terrains sont occupés par des locaux appartenant à des sociétés coopératives.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

- 6 cases against the Russian Federation / 6 affaires contre la Fédération de Russie

3267/03 Moskalyuk, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010

The case concerns degrading treatment suffered by the applicant from 23/07/2002 to 4/01/2003 due to the lack of adequate medical assistance for his tuberculosis in remand prison No. IZ-77/1 in Moscow, in the medical correctional colony No. LIU-10 in the Omsk Region and during his transfer from Moscow to the Omsk Region and from the Omsk Region to the Kaluga Region (violations of Article 3).

The European Court found that despite the seriousness of the applicant’s condition, the hospitals at the remand prison and the medical correctional colony failed to monitor his condition properly and discontinued his treatment for extended periods without sufficient medical indication.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

23610/03 Melnikov, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010

The case concerns first, the poor conditions in which the applicant was held in pre-trial detention from November 2003 to December 2004 at remand centre No. 69/1 in Tver (violation of Article 3).

It also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that he was not given an adequate opportunity to examine the key witness, his co-accused, either at the investigation stage or before the trial court, due in particular to the lack of any reasonable effort by the authorities to ensure the witness’s presence at the trial (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3d). The applicant’s conviction on two counts of theft was based, to a decisive extent, on the pre-trial deposition of his co-accused who did not appear at the applicant’s trial.

The European Court first recalled that a higher degree of scrutiny may be required for assessing statements by accomplices, not least because their testimony is not given under oath. The European Court considered that before admitting such a statement in evidence, it was incumbent on the national court to assess what impact the absence of the co-accused might have on the fairness of the trial.

It found that is had been insufficient that the domestic court relied on the fact that the applicant had had a previous opportunity to question his co-accused during a pre-trial confrontation. The European Court considered that it was unlikely that in the absence of legal advice, the applicant had been in a position to understand the confrontation procedure and effectively exercise his right to examine a “witness” with a view to casting doubt on the authenticity and credibility of his statement. In addition, the European Court observed that the confrontation was conducted by an investigator who did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality, and had broad discretionary power to block questions during the confrontation. Finally, no reasonable steps were taken to secure the witness’s presence at the trial.

Individual measures: On 10/12/2002 the applicant was convicted of robbery and two counts of theft and sentenced to eight years’ and six months’ imprisonment. On 20/03/2003 the appeal court, while upholding the judgment, reduced his sentence to eight years. The European Court granted the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The European Court noted that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings, if requested. It noted in this respect that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides the possibility to reopen criminal proceedings following a judgment of the European Court.

Information is awaited as to whether the applicant requested the reopening of proceedings.

General measures:

1) Poor conditions of pre-trial detention

This issue is examined in the Kalashnikov group of cases (47095/99, DH meeting in March 2011)

2) Failure to provide an opportunity to examine a witness

Action plan/action report is awaited.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

11020/03 Shugayev, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant in that the appeal court failed in January 2003 to appoint him counsel (violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3c). The applicant appeared before the appeal court by videoconference from prison and the prosecutor appeared in the courtroom in person, and the fact that the applicant communicated with the court without any representation in the courtroom put him at a certain disadvantage. In response to the government’s argument that the applicant should have asked to have a lawyer appointed, the European Court held that the effectiveness of the guarantee of legal representation by default contained in Article 51 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure would be undermined without a corresponding obligation on the part of the court to verify in each individual case whether it is lawful to proceed with a hearing in the absence of legal counsel for the accused.

The European Court concluded that it had been incumbent on the appeal court to verify whether there had been a valid waiver of legal assistance by the applicant and, if there had not, to appoint a lawyer as required by Article 51§§1(1) and 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of individual petition on account of the prison authorities’ failure to deliver correspondence from the European Court to the applicant (violation of Article 34). The European Court observed that in 2006-2008, seven of the Court’s letters never reached the applicant, in particular because the applicant was transferred from one colony to another. Despite the clear obligation upon correctional institutions to forward the letters to the applicant after the change of his address provided by the Internal Regulations of Correctional Institutions (in force from 3/11/2005), the prison administration failed to do so. The non-delivery of the Court’s letters to the applicant caused serious delays in the examination of his case.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It transpires from the judgment that on 21/09/2004 the applicant was sentenced to 22½ years’ imprisonment.

Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides the possibility to reopen proceedings following a judgment of the European Court.

Information is thus awaited as to whether the proceedings in the applicant’s case have been reopened.

General measures:

1) Failure to secure the participation of defence counsel in the appeal proceedings: This issue presents similarities to those examined in the Shulepov case (15435/03, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

Information is awaited on the publication and dissemination of the judgment.

2) The correctional authorities’ failure to deliver the Court’s letters to the applicant in transit: • An action plan/action report is awaited.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

21851/03 Bezymyannaya, judgment of 22/12/2009, final on 22/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court for the determination of her civil claims in that domestic courts declined jurisdiction over her case. The applicant sought to invalidate a property contract, first before a court of general jurisdiction. This court however declined its jurisdiction and transferred the case to a commercial court which also subsequently declined its jurisdiction.

The European Court found that the applicant had been locked in a vicious circle in which national courts were indicating each other and refusing to hear her case in view of alleged limitations on their judicial powers (violation of Article 6§1).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

14085/04 Smirnov Sergey, judgment of 22/12/2009, final on 22/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to court for the determination of his civil claims, in that access was denied him on the ground that he did not have a fixed or registered abode. The domestic courts considered that the fact that he indicated an address for correspondence instead was not enough for them to entertain his claims.

The European Court found that in doing so, the Russian courts demonstrated excessive and unjustified formalism by insisting that the applicant indicate his place of residence, a requirement that was known to be impossible in his situation. The European Court concluded that there had been an unreasonable construction of a procedural requirement which prevented the applicant’s claims being examined on the merits (violation of Article 6§1).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

3950/02 Tarasov Anatoliy, judgment of 18/02/2010, final on 18/05/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that the criminal charges against him had been reclassified in a supervisory review hearing without his being able to present his arguments (violation of Article 6§1).

The case further concerns the interference by the prison authorities (LIU-2 in the Udmurtiya Republic) in May 2005 with the exercise of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence on account of the censorship of the Court’s letter (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 12/10/1999 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to twenty-three years’ imprisonment. As a result of the supervisory-review examination of his case, his sentence was reduced to twenty-two years’ imprisonment.

General measures:

1) Lack of fairness in the supervisory-review procedure: This issue is being examined in the Radchikov group of cases (65582/01, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

2) Censorship of detainees’ correspondence with the Court by the colony administration: It would appear that a number of measures have been adopted by the Russian authorities to prevent new, similar violations (see the Nurmagomedov case, 30138/02, Section 6.2). However, the violation described in the present judgment occurred notwithstanding the adoption of these measures.

Action plan/action report is thus awaited.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic / 1 affaire contre la République slovaque

34761/03 Lexa No. 2, judgment of 05/01/2010, final on 05/04/2010

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right adequately to challenge the grounds for his detention (violation of Article 5§4).

The applicant, a former director of the Slovakian intelligence service, was arrested in December 2002 on charges of incitement to commit murder, abuse of authority and mishandling of classified state secrets. The applicant lodged a complaint against the Bratislava I District Court's decision to remand him in custody. On 7/012003 he requested that his counsel should be allowed to consult the file. The regional court allowed the counsel to examine the file from 9 to 12 a.m. on 14/01/2003. It dismissed the applicant's complaint at a session held in camera on 14/01/2003, shortly after the applicant's counsel had consulted the file.

The applicant was released in June 2003 and the proceedings against him were discontinued in September 2006 for lack of proof.

The European Court considered that although the regional court allowed the applicant’s counsel to consult the file, neither he nor the applicant had had sufficient opportunity to take cognisance of the evidence; they had had no practical possibility of submitting arguments, written or oral, to challenge its reliability (§§72-73).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 1 case against Sweden / 1 affaire contre la Suède

*41827/07 R.C., judgment of 09/03/2010, final on 09/06/2010

The case concerns the risk of a violation of Article 3 if the Swedish authorities were to enforce an order deport the applicant, an Iranian dissident, to Iran.

The European Court found that the applicant had substantiated his claim that he had been detained and tortured by the Iranian authorities following a demonstration in July 2001. According to information available from independent international sources, Iranians who returned home and were not able to prove that they had left the country legally ran a particularly high risk of attracting the authorities’ attention. The applicant claimed to have left Iran illegally and that had not been disputed by the government. Consequently, it was likely that his past would be revealed if he returned to Iran and that he would be detained and ill-treated.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010 (DH)), in the light of an action plan/action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 1 case against Switzerland / 1 affaire contre la Suisse

22015/05 Werz, arrêt du 17/12/2009, définitif le 17/03/2010

Cette affaire concerne la durée excessive d’une procédure pénale (environ 5 ans) (violation de l’article 6§1). A la différence de l’affaire McHugo (55705/00, rubrique 6.2), la Cour européenne a estimé dans la présente affaire que la durée excessive de cette procédure était dû au retard pris par la Cour suprême dans la notification de son arrêt motivé au requérant (15 mois après le prononcé du verdict) et ce, malgré l’article 314 du code de procédure pénale du canton de Berne qui prévoit que la version motivée d‘un jugement doit être rendue dans un délai de soixante jours.

L’affaire concerne également une violation du droit du requérant à un procès équitable (violation de l’article 6§1) dans la mesure où les dupliques du ministère public et de la Cour suprême n’ont pas été communiqués au requérant dans la procédure de recours de droit public devant le Tribunal fédéral.

• Informations fournies par les autorités (lettre du 17/06/2010) : Le Tribunal fédéral et les autorités directement concernées ont été informées du contenu de l’arrêt. En outre, l’arrêt a été publié au Rapport trimestriel sur la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne et son résumé dans les trois langues officielles a été diffusé auprès de toutes les autorités fédérales et de tous les cantons. Les autorités suisses estiment que les tribunaux internes vont donner plein effet à cet arrêt et qu’aucune autre mesure n’est envisagée.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ce point au plus tard lors de leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’une évaluation des informations fournies. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an assessment of the information provided.

- 1 case against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” /

1 affaires contre « l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine »

36815/03 Atanasovski, judgment of 14/01/2010, final on 14/04/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that the Supreme Court failed to provide him with a more detailed explanation as to why his case had been decided contrary to pre-existing case-law (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning an employment dispute, which began in 1997 and ended in 2003 (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that the fact that the case was remitted on two occasions contributed to the length of proceedings and that the excessive workload of the Supreme Court could not justify the length of proceedings before it (§31).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 6 cases against Turkey / 59 affaires contre la Turquie

21924/05 Işık Sinan, arrêt du 02/02/2010, définitif le 02/05/2010

Cette affaire concerne une violation du droit du requérant à la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion (violation de l’article 9).

En mai 2004, le requérant avait introduit devant les tribunaux nationaux une demande tendant à l’inscription de la mention « alévie » dans la case consacrée à la religion sur sa carte d’identité au lieu de la mention « islam ». Dans son mémoire introductif d’instance, le requérant avait également souligné son profond désaccord quant à l’existence d’une case spécifique sur les cartes d’identité, mentionnant la religion de la personne concernée. Les tribunaux ont débouté le requérant de sa demande en considérant notamment que la confession « alévie » n’était pas une religion à part et qu’elle était une « branche » de l’Islam.

La Cour européenne a estimé que la mention litigieuse pouvait être interprétée comme une mesure contraignant tout citoyen turc à divulguer ses croyances et convictions religieuses, après avoir considéré que la mention des convictions religieuses sur les cartes d’identité risquait d’aboutir à des situations discriminatoires et que cette mention spécifique impliquait nécessairement une législation imposant la déclaration non volontaire des croyances religieuses. La Cour européenne a par ailleurs considéré qu’en vertu du nouvel article 35 de la loi n° 5490 la case réservée à la religion pouvait être laissée vide sur une déclaration écrite de l’intéressé mais a estimé que cet amendement n’affectait en rien ses considérations, puisque l’exigence d’une déclaration écrite à cet effet constituait « la divulgation d’une information relative à un aspect de l’attitude des individus envers le divin ».

Enfin, concernant l’application de l’article 46 de la Convention, la Cour a considéré que la suppression de la case consacrée à la religion sur les cartes d’identité pourrait constituer une forme appropriée de réparation qui permettrait de mettre un terme à la violation constatée (§60 de l’arrêt).

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

25585/02 Emen, arrêt du 26/01/2010, définitif le 26/04/2010

La présente affaire concerne une violation du droit du requérant à un procès équitable dans la mesure où il a été condamné à la réclusion à perpétuité pour des activités terroristes, dans une mesure déterminante sur le fondement des dépositions des témoins obtenues dans le cadre d’une autre procédure pénale à laquelle le requérant était étranger. Après voir constaté que le requérant ne s’était pas vu offrir la possibilité, à aucun stade de la procédure, d’interroger ou de faire interroger les auteurs des déclarations litigieuses, la Cour européenne a conclu que les principes de contradictoire et de l’égalité des armes n’avaient pas été respectés en l’espèce (violation de l’article 6§§1 et 3d) de la Convention).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a octroyé au requérant une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral subi.

Elle a en outre indiqué que la forme la plus appropriée de redressement serait un nouveau procès conforme aux exigences de l’article 6, si le requérant le demande.

Des informations sont attendues à cet égard.

Mesures de caractère général : 

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

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

17570/04 Hun Burak, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in that he was arrested and convicted of buying and selling drugs through a police operation using an agent provocateur (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that the actions of the state agent had gone beyond the mere passive investigation of crime, and that there was no evidence that the applicant was engaged in criminal activity before the intervention of the agent provocateur. The European Court observed that the agent's actions had had the effect of inciting the applicant to commit the offence concerned and that there was no indication that the applicant would have committed it without his intervention (§§ 43-47).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

*18328/07+ Soytaş et autres, décision of 15/06/2010 – Règlement amiable

Cette affaire concerne la durée de la détention provisoire des requérants et la durée de la procédure pénale dirigée à leur encontre (griefs tirés des articles 5§3 et 6§1).

La Cour européenne a reçu des déclarations de règlement amiable signées par le Gouvernement (février 2010) et les requérants (juin-juillet 2009). Par ces déclarations, le Gouvernement s’est engagé à payer aux requérants des sommes au titre des préjudices matériel et moral et de frais et dépens. En retour, les requérants ont renoncé à toute autre prétention à l’encontre de la Turquie à propos des faits à l’origine de leur requête.

Prenant acte du règlement amiable auquel les parties sont parvenues et considérant que celui-ci s’inspire du respect des droits de l’homme, tels que consacrés par la Convention et de ses protocoles, la Cour a décidé de rayer la requête du rôle. En constatant toutefois que le requérant Suat Çetin se trouvait toujours en détention provisoire et que la procédure dirigée à son encontre était toujours pendante devant les instances judiciaires nationales, la Cour a considéré que l’Etat défendeur devrait prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour que la procédure soit achevée le plus rapidement possible ou libérer M. Suat Çetin pendant la procédure en question.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard lors de leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action/bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities.

21482/03 Yıldırır, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In 1996, the applicant bought a house from its previous owner relying on the records kept by the land registry office. The domestic courts, considering that the house was an illegal construction under the domestic law, issued a demolition order and in May 2004 the applicant’s house was demolished.

The European Court observed that, as the land registry record contained no annotation concerning the illegality of the construction, it did not appear that the applicant knew or ought to have known that the house was an illegal construction. Moreover, the total lack of compensation for the privation of his property upset the fair balance which has to be struck between the protection of property and the requirement of general interest.

The European Court reserved the application of Article 41.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

14719/03 Bora, judgment of 09/02/2010, final on 09/05/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a court due to the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in his favour. The Istanbul Administrative Court gave judgment concerning the title deed to the applicant’s land but the national authorities failed to take any decision to give effect to the judgment. The land had been transferred to bona fide third persons while the proceedings before the administrative courts were still pending, and despite the apparent stay of execution of the challenged decision by the administrative authorities.

The European Court considered that the question of Article 41 was not ready for decision.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (December 2010), in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 1 case against Ukraine / 1 affaire contre l'Ukraine

20808/02 Shalimov, judgment of 04/03/2010, final on 04/06/2010

The case concerns unlawful interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life because of the state authorities’ refusals to allow family visits during his pre-trial detention (violation of Article 8§2). The European Court noted in particular that the domestic law on family visits during pre-trial detention did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the authorities’ discretion to restrict detainees' contacts with family and contained no safeguards against arbitrariness or abuse.

The case also concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in that the courts failed to give any reason for his prolonged detention and considered no preventive measures alternative to detention (violation of Article 5§3).

It finally concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Articles 6§1 and 13).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

- 2 cases against the United Kingdom / 2 affaires contre le Royaume-Uni

42509/05 Crompton, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 10/05/2010

This case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings before the Army Board and the High Court from December 1994 to May 2005 (8 years and 5 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

The United Kingdom authorities accepted that the delay was not reasonable within the meaning of Article 6(1).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

19859/04 Anderson Richard, judgment of 09/02/2010, final on 09/05/2010

This case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings before the Scottish Courts from April 1997 to December 2003 (6 years and months for 3 levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that whilst the applicant bore some responsibility for the delay at the initial stage of the proceedings, there were periods of inactivity for which no satisfactory explanation had been given. In particular the European Court identified that the Inner Court of Session did not meet its obligation to take an active role in the management of proceedings (§28).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of an action plan / action report to be provided by the authorities. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard à leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’un plan d’action / bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités.

1 The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime 2000.

2 The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings of 16 May 2005.

3 Protocole visant à prévenir, réprimer et punir la traite des personnes, en particulier des femmes et des enfants, additionnel à la Convention des Nations Unies contre la criminalité transnationale organisée, 2000.

4 Convention du Conseil de l'Europe sur la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains, 16 mai 2005.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents