Ministers’ Deputies / Délégués des Ministres

Agenda / Ordre du jour

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2010)1092 Section/Rubrique 5 PUBLIC 29 September / septembre 2010

———————————————

1092 meeting / réunion (DH),
14-15 September / septembre 2010

Section/Rubrique 5

——————————————

Public information version /

Version destinée à l'information publique

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

RUBRIQUE 5 - CONTROLE DES MESURES DE CARACTÈRE GÉNÉRAL DÉJÀ ANNONCÉES

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise progress in the adoption of general measures aiming at preventing further similar violations to those found by the Court in the following cases.

Les Délégués sont invités à procéder au contrôle du progrès réalisé dans l’adoption des mesures de caractère général visant à prévenir de nouvelles violations semblables à celles constatées par la Cour dans les affaires suivantes.

SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES

    SOUS-RUBRIQUE 5.1 – CHANGEMENTS LÉGISLATIFS ET/OU RÉGLEMENTAIRES

- 1 case against Croatia / 1 affaire contre la Croatie

35030/04 Karadžić, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006

The case concerns the failure of the Croatian authorities to take adequate and effective measures to reunite the applicant with her son born in 1995 due to delays, first in the proceedings in application of the 1980 Hague Convention (on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction) and secondly in the enforcement of the decision delivered in 2003 requiring the applicant's child to be returned to her (violation of Article 8).

The European Court noted in particular that the police did not show the necessary diligence in locating the child's father and twice allowed him to escape from their custody (§60 of the judgment). Furthermore, the only sanction the authorities used against the father was the imposition of a fine and a detention order, neither of which appeared to have been enforced (§61 of the judgment).

The Court reiterated that in cases of this kind the adequacy of measures taken is to be judged by the swiftness of their implementation, as the passage of time and change of circumstances can have irreparable consequences for relations between children and the parent who does not live with them (§62 of the judgment).

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

Information provided by the applicant’s representative (31/05/2006): The applicant has never agreed to her son’s remaining with his father. Her Croatian lawyer never declared to the Croatian authorities the applicant’s approval of the fact that her son lives with his father, but merely consented that he might do so until 28/02/2006.

Information provided by the Croatian authorities (24/10/2006 and 29/10/2008): The child is living with his father on the basis of an agreement between the parents, concluded in February 2005. The social welfare authorities adopted a decision on 15/02/2005 to approve this agreement. The decision was received on the applicant’s behalf by her Croatian lawyer, who has also waived her right of appeal. The decision indicates furthermore that the mother has access to her son on the basis of an agreement with the father. The Croatian Bar Association informed the applicant on 08/11/2005 that no malpractice has been found in the actions of her Croatian lawyer in that procedure. Reports by the social services of July 2006 and October 2008 indicate that the child is living with his father and his new family, regularly attends school, where he has very good marks, is in good health and is normally developed. It should be also noted that the applicant’s child spends two weeks per year with the mother and also has a mobile telephone allowing him to contact her.

Assessment: The European Court noted that the respondent state could not be held responsible for the conduct of the applicant’s lawyer of choice, or the consequences thereof (§57 of the judgment). The Court noted that the applicant could have appealed or brought further proceedings in respect of the decisions resulting from the allegedly false representation of her will by her lawyer, but she never did so. Thus, the same reasoning should apply to the developments in the case after the European Court rendered its judgment. It appears that the applicant’s lawyer accepted on her behalf the decision of the social welfare centre concerning her child. It appears that she has never contested the actions of her lawyer before the Croatian courts, while her complaint lodged with the Croatian Bar Association has been dismissed. Thus, no other individual measure seems necessary in this case.

General measures:

Information provided by the Croatian authorities (02/10/2006, 26/11/2007, 08/01/2008, 17/01/2008, 20/10/2008, 29/10/2008, 13/05/2009, 22/05/2009):

1) Legislative measures: On 7/12/2007 the Croatian government established a working group for the preparation of a legislation for implementation of the Hague Convention. The group has prepared a draft law amending the Family Act which takes into account the requirements of the European Court’s case-law. However, the authorities subsequently decided to draft a separate law. The same working group started work on the new draft law in February 2009. All provisions from the previous draft amendments to the Family Act have been included in substance in the new draft law, which moreover includes the 2006 Transfrontier Access/Contact/General Principles and Good Practice of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Information is expected on the progress in the adoption of the draft law. The copy of the new draft will be very helpful.

2) Training: In 2006, the Judicial Academy organised several seminars for judges on the application of the Hague Convention of 1980.

3) Publication and dissemination (letter of 24/10/2006): The European Court's judgment has been published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr) and in the legal journal Case law of the European Court of Human Rights, No. 2 (June-December 2005). It was sent out to all authorities involved in the application of the Hague Convention. In addition three seminars on the application of the Hague Convention have already been organised by the Judges' Academy, with lecturers from Germany and from the Secretariat of the Hague Conference.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011, in the light of information to be provided on general measures. / 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'informations à fournir sur les mesures générales.

- 5 cases against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" / 5 affaires contre « l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine »

      - 4 cases concerning lack of effective investigation of allegations of ill-treatment by the police

69908/01 Jasar, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007

13252/02 Dželadinov, judgment of 10/04/2008, final on 10/07/2008

69875/01 Sulejmanov, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008

13191/02 Trajkoski, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/07/2008

These cases concern the authorities’ failure in their duty to investigate effectively the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by the police (procedural violations of Article 3). The competent Public Prosecutors' Offices whose duty it is to discover whether an offence had been committed against the applicants, nationals of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” of Roma ethnic origin (except in the Trajkoski case), have undertaken no investigation in this respect nor informed the applicants of any results.

The European Court noted that the applicants are still barred from taking over the investigation as a subsidiary complainant, as the Public Prosecutor has not yet taken a decision to dismiss the complaint filed by the applicants (§59 in Jašar and § 73 in Dželadinov). In the Trajkoski case, the European Court noted that the applicant’s complaints remained without judicial consideration on the merits in the subsidiary criminal proceedings due to the excessive formalism of the domestic court and its failure to take any further action in this case (§48).

Individual measures: The applicants are time-barred as from 2006 in the Trajkovski case and 2003 in the other cases from bringing an action against the police officers who allegedly ill-treated them. In the Jašar case, on 22/02/2006 the Basic Public Prosecutor of Štip decided to prosecute no-one in the present case which was closed as time-barred.

The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage in all cases.

Assessment: In view of the circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Information provided by the authorities (14/03/2008, 15/10/2008, 29/06/2009, 05/01/2010 and 30/06/2010): The new 2007 Public Prosecution Act has been adopted (Official Gazette, No. 50 of 12/12/2007). Pursuant to Article 39 Section 3, the public prosecutor is obliged to take the steps authorised under the law as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days after the complaint has been filed.

In May 2007, the Strategy of Criminal Law Reform was also adopted. It detected a number of deficiencies in the current legal system. In accordance with the Action Plan for Strategy Implementation, four working parties have been established within the Ministry of Justice (two for Criminal Law and two for Criminal Procedure Law). Taking into account the present judgments, draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) and to some other laws have been already prepared and published in the local language and in English on the website of the Ministry of Justice. Following the wide debate on the draft law, it is currently in the final stage of drafting. In particular, Article 275 of the CCP would be amended to provide a three-month deadline within which public prosecutors must decide on complaints. Where the public prosecutor failed to decide on a complaint within the prescribed period, he or she would be obliged so to inform the applicant and the superior prosecutor.

At the same time, draft amendments to the Public Prosecution Act envisage establishing a special prosecution division in charge of such cases.

• Information received from other sources: The problem concerning the absence of effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police has been highlighted in CPT reports. The CPT recommended that the national authorities strenuously reiterate the message of zero-tolerance of ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty (§15 CPT/Info(2008)22). The CPT noted in the report concerning its field visit in 2008, that no action had been taken by the relevant authorities to ensure implementation of its recommendation that, whenever persons brought before a prosecutor or judge allege ill-treatment by law enforcement officials, the prosecutor or judge should record the allegations in writing, order an immediate forensic medical examination and take the necessary steps to ensure that the allegations are properly investigated (§33 CPT/Info(2008)31). Further, the CPT recommended that even in the absence of an express allegation of ill-treatment, the prosecutor or judge should adopt a proactive approach. If necessary, the CPT recommended that guidelines should be issued by the appropriate authorities (§16 CPT/Info(2008)22).

On 10/07/2007, the Secretariat received a letter from the Civil Society Research Center, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and the European Roma Rights Centre, Hungary, concerning the draft Public Prosecution Act. Apparently neither the draft law nor the equivalent law in force at the time lays down any time-limit for carrying out such investigations and informing those concerned of any outcome.

Assessment: The Secretariat takes note of the measures taken so far by the authorities. It appears that the proposed amendments to the CCP are capable of preventing similar violations in the future by introducing an obligation upon prosecutors to take decisions within a prescribed deadline.

Information is thus awaited on further progress in amending the legislation.

The judgment in the Jašar case has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice.

On 04/04/2007 the Government Agent forwarded the judgment with a special note on the violation found to the Court of First Instance of Štip, Court of Appeals in Štip, Bitola and Skopje, the Supreme Court, the Basic Public Prosecutor of Štip, Higher Public Prosecutors of Štip, Bitola and Skopje and to the Prosecutor General. On 16/06/2006 a special letter was also sent to the Ministry of the Interior regarding the case.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at the latest at their DH meeting in March 2011 (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on general measures, namely progress with the promised legislative reform. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ces points au plus tard lors de leur réunion DH de mars 2011, à la lumière d’informations supplémentaires à fournir sur les mesures générales, à savoir l’état d’avancement de la réforme législative promise.

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

26541/02 Nankov, judgment of 29/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

This case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant between 1992 and 2002 (violation of Article 6§1). Significant delays were attributed to three remittals of the case for re-examination and a frequent change of trial judges.

The European Court stated that “since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system” (§48). The Court also pointed out that the frequent changes of trial judges also contributed to the length of proceedings.

Individual measures: The criminal proceedings against the applicant ended in 2002 (§ 44 of the judgment).

Assessment: No further measure is required.

General measures:

• Information provided by the authorities of the respondent state (29/06/2009, 05/01/2010 and 30/06/2010): Draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), designed to eliminate repetitive remittals of cases for re-examination within a single set of proceedings, are expected to be adopted. In particular, Article 443 of the CCP would be amended to provide that courts of appeal decide on the merits when examining a case for the second time on appeal within a single set of proceedings.

Concerning the rules governing the change of trial judges in criminal proceedings, the authorities have indicated that the relevant provision of Article 371(2) of the CCP has been amended to introduce the possibility that under certain conditions the hearing need not be restarted all over again in a case of change of trial judges within a single set of criminal proceedings.

Assessment: Note is taken of the measures taken so far by the authorities. It appears that the proposed amendments to the CCP may prevent similar violations by eliminating repetitive remittals of cases for re-examination within one set of proceedings. It also appears that the legislative measures taken should eliminate excessive length of proceedings in the case of change of trial judges within a single set of criminal proceedings.

Information is awaited on further progress in amending the law to eliminate repetitive remittals of cases for re-examination within one set of criminal proceedings.

• Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravda.gov.mk). It was forwarded to all domestic courts with an explanatory note.

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

- 7 cases against Turkey / 7 affaires contre la Turquie

      - 7 affaires concernant principalement la violation du principe de l'égalité des armes en raison de la non-communication d'une pièce du dossier, classée confidentielle

60366/00 Kahraman, arrêt du 31/10/2006, définitif le 31/01/2007

59741/00 Aksoy (Eroğlu), arrêt du 31/10/2006, définitif le 31/01/2007

26718/05 Çatak, arrêt du 06/10/2009, définitif le 06/01/2010

59739/00 Güner Çorum, arrêt du 31/10/2006, définitif le 31/01/2007

43554/04 İlter, arrêt du 29/09/2009, définitif le 29/12/2009

38011/05 Merdan, arrêt du 29/09/2009, définitif le 29/12/2009

3055/04 Topal, arrêt du 21/04/2009, définitif le 21/07/2009

Ce groupe d'affaires concerne la violation du droit des requérants à un procès équitable.

Dans les affaires Kahraman, Aksoy et Güner Çorum, les trois requérantes exerçaient en tant qu'infirmières dans l'armée. En avril 1999, suite à des enquêtes disciplinaires, le Haut Conseil de Discipline du Ministère de la Défense nationale décida de les révoquer pour avoir troublé l'ordre de leur établissement en menant des activités idéologiques et politiques, en tant que sympathisantes d'une organisation illégale. Les requérantes contestèrent en vain leur révocation devant la haute cour administrative militaire. Lors des audiences, le Ministère de la défense soumit les dossiers des enquêtes administratives sous pli séparé dans une enveloppe portant la mention « secret ». Ces dossiers ne furent pas transmis aux requérantes.

La Cour européenne a établi que la non transmission des dossiers classés « secret » aux requérantes découlait directement de l'article 52§4 de la loi n° 1602 qui interdit l'examen des documents secrets par les parties ou leurs représentants. La Cour a par conséquent constaté une violation du principe de l'égalité des armes (violation de l'article 6§1).

Dans les affaires Çatak, İlter, Merdan et Topal, l’issue des litiges devant la haute cour administrative militaire, qui concernaient soit l’exclusion définitive des requérants de l’école militaire (affaires Topal et Çatak), soit le refus des autorités de faire bénéficier le requérant (officier militaire en retraite) des facilités sociales prévues pour les militaires retraités (affaire İlter), soit le transfert du requérant (officier militaire) dans une autre garnison (affaire Merdan), avait été largement déterminée par le contenu des dossiers classés « secret » soumis par le Ministère de la Défense à la haute cour administrative militaire. Dans ces affaires, la Cour européenne a également constaté une violation de l’article 6§1 en raison de la non-transmission de ces dossiers classés secrets aux requérants lors de la procédure devant la haute cour administrative militaire.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

Informations fournies par les autorités turques (20/09/07) : Les requérants ont la possibilité de demander la réouverture des procédures sur le fondement de la violation constatée par la Cour européenne, selon les articles 56 et 64 de la loi n°1602 et de l'article 53 du Code de procédure administrative. A ce jour, les requérants n'ont pas saisi cette possibilité d'introduire un recours.

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

Mesures de caractère général : Etant donné que la violation dans ces affaires découle directement de l'interdiction contenue à l'article 52§4 de la loi n° 1602, les autorités sont invitées à examiner l'adoption de mesures visant soit à exclure des procédures judiciaires toute pièce ne pouvant pas légalement être révélée aux parties soit à introduire une exception en faveur des parties concernées.

Informations fournies par les autorités turques (20/09/07) : Un amendement à l'article 52§4 de la loi n° 1602 est en cours d'examen à la lumière de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne.

Des informations sont attendues sur l'état d'avancement de cet amendement.

Les Délégués décident de reprendre l'examen de ces points lors de leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d'informations à fournir sur les mesures générales. / The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on general measures.

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

67531/01 Gorshkov, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

The case concerns the fact that the applicant was not entitled to take proceedings to test the lawfulness of his continued detention for compulsory medical treatment by a court according to the legislation in force such appeal was opened only to doctors of the psychiatric institution concerned (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: The applicant was released from the hospital on 08/11/2001, almost two years after his health had improved.

General measures: While the Court noted that the Psychiatric Medical Assistance Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure provided several safeguards (regular examination of the detainee by a commission of psychiatrists and courts at least every 6 months, the possibility for the medial director of the institution to apply to a court, etc), it however found that their existence did not eliminate the need for an independent right of individual application by the patient (§45 of the judgment). It therefore appears appropriate to introduce legislation to this effect.

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (letter of 23/01/2007): The following measures have been undertaken:

1) Legislative reform: The Government of Ukraine has drawn up a draft law “on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Change or Cancellation of Forced Medical Treatment”. This draft law gives those subject to compulsory medical treatment a right to initiate reconsideration of the legality of the measures applied, or their cancellation. The authorities informed the Committee of Ministers on 01/11/2007 that this law is in the final stage of drafting and that it will be submitted to the government for consideration.

Information is still awaited on the progress with this draft law, including a timetable for its adoption; a copy of the text would also be helpful. Pending the adoption of a possible legislative reform, information would be useful on interim measures taken to ensure compliance with the European Court’s judgment.

2) Translation, publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court: It has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice’s official website. It was published in the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 45 (2006). By letter of 21/11/2006, the attention of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Office of the Prosecutor General was drawn to the European Court’s conclusions.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this case at the latest at their DH meeting in June 2011 in the light of further information to be provided on general measures. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point au plus tard lors de leur réunion DH de juin 2011, à la lumière d'informations à fournir sur les mesures générales.

* * *

SUB-SECTION 5.2 – CHANGES OF COURTS’ CASE-LAW OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE

      SOUS-RUBRIQUE 5.2 - CHANGEMENTS DE LA JURISPRUDENCE DES TRIBUNAUX OU DE LA PRATIQUE ADMINISTRATIVE

No new case

Pas de nouvelle affaire

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

SOUS-RUBRIQUE 5.3 - PUBLICATION / DIFFUSION

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on general measures, namely publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgments. / Les Délégués décident de reprendre l’examen de ces points lors de leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’informations à fournir sur les mesures générales, à savoir la publication et la diffusion des arrêts de la Cour européenne.

Section 5.3a

Cases in which supervision of measures concerning publications and disseminations has been taking place for less than a year

- 1 case against Bulgaria

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

- 2 cases against Denmark

- 2 cases of length of civil proceedings

247/07 Christensen, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 22/04/2009

44034/07 Nielsen, judgment of 2/07/2009, final on 2/10/2009

- 1 case against Italy

- Case concerning the lack of access to a court, the applicants being unable to bring proceedings for libel against members of the parliament enjoying parliamentary privilege

46967/07 C.G.I.L. and Cofferati, judgment of 24/02/2009, final on 06/07/2009

- 2 cases against Turkey

- Case concerning ill-treatment as a result of disproportionate security measures during medical examination of detainees

7496/03 Uyan Filiz, judgment of 08/01/09, final on 08/04/09

8932/03 Paşaoğlu, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008

Rubrique 5.3a

Affaires pour lesquelles la surveillance des mesures de publication et diffusion se poursuit depuis moins d’un an

- 1 affaire contre la Bulgarie

68294/01 Kandzhov, arrêt du 06/11/2008, définitif le 06/02/2009

- 2 affaires contre le Danemark

- 2 affaires de durée de procédures civiles

247/07 Christensen, arrêt du 22/01/2009, définitif le 22/04/2009

44034/07 Nielsen, arrêt du 2/07/2009, définitif le 2/10/2009

- 1 affaire contre l’Italie

- Affaire concernant la violation du droit d'accès à un tribunal, les requérants n'ayant pas pu intenter une procédure en diffamation à l'encontre de membres du parlement bénéficiant de l'immunité parlementaire

46967/07 C.G.I.L. et Cofferati, arrêt du 24/02/2009, définitif le 06/07/2009

- 2 affaires contre la Turquie

- Affaire concernant des mauvais traitements en raison de mesures de sécurité disproportionnées prises lors de l'examen médical des détenus

7496/03 Uyan Filiz, arrêt du 08/01/09, définitif le 08/04/09

8932/03 Paşaoğlu, arrêt du 08/07/2008, définitif le 08/10/2008

Section 5.3b

Cases in which supervision of measures concerning publications and disseminations has been taking place for more than a year

- 1 case against Andorra

69498/01 Pla and Puncernau, judgment of 13/07/2004, final on 15/12/2004 and of 10/10/2004 (Article 41) - Friendly settlement

- 5 cases against Bulgaria

68079/01 Nikolov Nikola, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007

44624/98 Prikyan and Angelova, judgment of 16/02/2006, final on 16/05/2006

40476/98 Yanakiev, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006

39272/98 M.C., judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

66535/01 Kroushev, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008

- 2 cases against Greece

25145/05 Vasilakis, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008

- Case concerning freedom of expression

15909/06 I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. and Karis, judgment of 05/06/2008, final on 05/09/2008

- 1 case against Italy

- Case concerning the lack of access to a court, the applicants being unable to bring proceedings for libel against members of parliament enjoying parliamentary privilege

10180/04 Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli, judgment of 20/04/2006, final on 20/07/2006

- 3 cases against Latvia

30273/03 Perry, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

61005/00 Kornakovs, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 15/09/2006

66820/01 Svipsta, judgment of 09/03/2006; final on 09/06/2006

- 1 case against Moldova

7170/02 Grădinar, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008

Rubrique 5.3b

Affaires pour lesquelles la surveillance des mesures de publication et diffusion se poursuit depuis plus d’un an

- 1 affaire contre Andorre

69498/01 Pla et Puncernau, arrêt du 13/07/2004, définitif le 15/12/2004 et du 10/10/2004 (article 41) - Règlement amiable

- 5 affaires contre la Bulgarie

68079/01 Nikolov Nikola, arrêt du 14/06/2007, définitif le 14/09/2007

44624/98 Prikyan et Angelova, arrêt du 16/02/2006, définitif le 16/05/2006

40476/98 Yanakiev, arrêt du 10/08/2006, définitif le 10/11/2006

39272/98 M.C., arrêt du 04/12/03, définitif le 04/03/04

66535/01 Kroushev, arrêt du 03/07/2008, définitif le 03/10/2008

- 2 affaires contre la Grèce

25145/05 Vasilakis, arrêt du 17/01/2008, définitif le 17/04/2008

- Affaire concernant la liberté d’expression

15909/06 I Avgi Publishing et Press Agency S.A. et Karis, arrêt du 05/06/2008, définitif le 05/09/2008

- 1 affaire contre l’Italie

- Affaire concernant la violation du droit d'accès à un tribunal, les requérants n'ayant pas pu intenter une procédure en diffamation à l'encontre de membres du parlement bénéficiant de l'immunité parlementaire

10180/04 Patrono, Cascini et Stefanelli, arrêt du 20/04/2006, définitif le 20/07/2006

- 3 affaires contre la Lettonie

30273/03 Perry, arrêt du 08/11/2007, définitif le 02/06/2008

61005/00 Kornakovs, arrêt du 15/06/2006, définitif le 15/09/2006

66820/01 Svipsta, arrêt du 09/03/2006; définitif le 09/06/2006

- 1 affaire contre la Moldova

7170/02 Grădinar, arrêt du 08/04/2008, définitif le 08/07/2008

- 4 cases against Poland

6925/02 Szymoński, judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007

46917/99 Stankiewicz, judgment of 06/04/2006, final on 06/07/2006

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

- Case concerning freedom of expression

57659/00 Kita, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008

- 6 cases against Romania

15741/03 Visan, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008

77193/01+ Dragotoniu and Militaru-Pidhorni, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 24/08/2007

35097/02 Bozgan, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 11/01/2008

36900/03 Toşcuţă and others, judgment of 25/11/2008, final on 25/02/2009

- 2 cases concerning the impossibility to obtain possession of land or equivalent compensation, due to the existence of a second property title delivered to third persons under Law No. 18/1991

20294/02 Drăculet, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 31/03/2008 and of 05/02/2009, final on 05/05/2009

31005/03 Ioan, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008 and of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010

- 5 cases against Turkey

1855/02 Kök, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 19/01/2007

34494/97 H.M., judgment of 08/08/2006, final on 08/11/2006

58771/00 Amato, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

- Case concerning the right to a fair hearing (re-examination without valid reason of issues which had already been the subject of a final decision)

10332/02+ Gög, Kolsuzoğlu and Agbayır, judgment of 24/01/2008, final on 24/04/2008

6489/03 Karaman, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008 and of 08/06/2010, rectified on 06/09/2010, possibly final on 08/09/2010

- 4 affaires contre la Pologne

6925/02 Szymoński, arrêt du 10/10/2006, définitif le 10/01/2007

46917/99 Stankiewicz, arrêt du 06/04/2006, définitif le 06/07/2006

51728/99 Rosenzweig et Bonded Warehouses Ltd., arrêt du 28/07/2005, définitif le 30/11/2005

- Affaire concernant la liberté d’expression

57659/00 Kita, arrêt du 08/07/2008, définitif le 08/10/2008

- 6 affaires contre la Roumanie

15741/03 Visan, arrêt du 24/04/2008, définitif le 24/07/2008

77193/01+ Dragotoniu et Militaru-Pidhorni, arrêt du 24/05/2007, définitif le 24/08/2007

35097/02 Bozgan, arrêt du 11/10/2007, définitif le 11/01/2008

36900/03 Toşcuţă et autres, arrêt du 25/11/2008, définitif le 25/02/2009

- 2 affaires concernant l'impossibilité d'une mise en possession d'un terrain ou d'une indemnisation équivalente en raison d'un deuxième titre de propriété délivré à des tiers en vertu de la loi n° 18/1991

20294/02 Drăculet, arrêt du 06/12/2007, définitif le 31/03/2008 et du 05/02/2009, définitif le 05/05/2009

31005/03 Ioan, arrêt du 01/07/2008, définitif le 01/12/2008 et du 12/01/2010, définitif le 12/04/2010

- 5 affaires contre la Turquie

1855/02 Kök, arrêt du 19/10/2006, définitif le 19/01/2007

34494/97 H.M., arrêt du 08/08/2006, définitif le 08/11/2006

58771/00 Amato, arrêt du 03/05/2007, définitif le 12/11/2007

- Affaire concernant le droit à un procès équitable (réexamen sans motif valide de questions ayant déjà fait l'objet d'une décision définitive)

10332/02+ Gög, Kolsuzoğlu et Agbayır, arrêt du 24/01/2008, définitif le 24/04/2008

6489/03 Karaman, arrêt du 15/01/2008, définitif le 15/04/2008 et du 08/06/2010, rectifié le 06/10/2010, éventuellement définitif le 08/09/2010

    SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

SOUS-RUBRIQUE 5.4 - AUTRES MESURES

No new case

Pas de nouvelle affaire



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents