Ministers' Deputies

    Decisions

    CM/Del/Dec(2003)854 (unclassified) 7 November 2003

    Volume I – APPENDICES

    ————————————————

    854th (DH) meeting, 7, 8 and 9 October 2003

    Appendices adopted


    (Formal date of adoption: 20 October 2003)

    ————————————————

    854th meeting (DH) – 7, 8 and 9 October 2003

    CONTENTS

    APPENDICES

    Pages

    APPENDIX 3 854th MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES

    (Strasbourg, 7, 8 and 9 October 2003, DH)

    ANNOTATED AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS (PUBLIC) 4

    APPENDIX 2 863rd MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES

    (Strasbourg, 2 and 3 December 2003, DH)

    PRELIMINARY LIST OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION (PUBLIC) 147

    854th meeting (DH) – 7, 8 and 9 October 2003

    APPENDIX 3

    854th METING OF THE MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

    (Strasbourg, 7, 8 and 9 October 2003 – DH)

    ANNOTATED AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS

    Document made public in pursuance of the decision taken at the 749th meeting (DH) (17 April 2001) – item d.

    CONTENTS

    INTRODUCTION 6

    GENERAL QUESTIONS 12

    SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS 13

    SECTION 2 - NEW CASES 18

    SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION 36

    SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTION (INDIVIDUAL MEASURES, MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS) 60

    SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED 122

    SECTION 6 - CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION: 132

    PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING (863rd MEETING, 2-3 December 2003) 146

    Additional documents

    Addendum General Questions

    Addendum 1 - Final Resolutions

    Addendum 4 – Cases raising special questions

    Addendum Preparation of the next DH meeting (863rd meeting, 2-3 December 2003)

    CM/Inf(2003)42

    CM/Inf(2003)12 Revised

    CM/Inf(2003)43

    CM/inf(2003)4 Revised 2

    CM/Inf(2003)14 Revised 3

    CM/Inf(2003)22

    INTRODUCTION

    At the present Human Rights meeting, the Committee of Ministers, sitting at the level of the Ministers’ Deputies, will supervise the execution of some 1559 cases in accordance with Article 46, § 2, of the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Supervision is carried out in accordance with the Rules for the application of this Article adopted by the Deputies on 11 January 20011. The Directorate General of Human Rights (Department for the execution of the judgments of the Court) and the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers provide advice and assistance to the Deputies in the fulfilment of their functions under the Convention. Information and communications relating to the cases should be addressed to these departments.

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

 

Meetings

Sections

854

847

841

834

827

819

810

803

798

783

 

General Questions

             

-

-

1689

1.1

5

2

3

4

8

2

12

0

11

3

1.2

3

5

4

53

2

0

6

11

36

1

1.3

2

8

15

47

18

4

11

4

8

8

1.4

11

10

17

56

44

10

36

25

2

7

2

114

98

76

99

52

108

154

277

142

83

3.1.a

486

0

469

439

546

677

638

568

536

388

3.1.b

188

0

170

165

129

110

89

116

70

54

3.1.c

27

0

40

40

39

38

39

36

36

36

3.2

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

1

2

-

4.1

10

4

10

15

6

15

17

15

8

13

4.2

289

101

82

156

78

116

112

91

78

65

4.3

73

4

5

123

2174

2155

5

71

72

4

5.1

40

4

39

33

25

32

21

13

12

18

5.2

1

1

-

1

0

1

-

0

0

-

5.3

6

3

4

7

5

11

7

16

3

10

5.4

0

0

-

0

0

0

-

0

0

-

6.1

8

375

372

355

406

377

318

351

324

336

6.2

391

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total of the cases on the Agenda2

1559

615

1276

1479

3151

3186

1456

1595

1340

2725

Total of final resolutions submitted

21

25

39

160

72

16

65

40

57

29

Total of new cases

115

98

76

99

52

108

154

277

142

83

Total of pending cases

3448

3352

3312

3380

3370

3327

3276

3187

2964

2649

    SECTION 1 – FINAL RESOLUTIONS

    In the cases appearing under this heading the Deputies are invited to adopt draft resolutions putting an end to the supervision of execution carried out pursuant to Article 46§2 of the Convention (or former Articles 323 and 54 for cases decided before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).

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

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

      Sub-section 1.1. - Leading cases

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

      Sub-section 1.2 – Cases concerning problems already solved

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SECTION 2 – NEW CASES

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

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

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

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

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

    SECTION 3 – JUST SATISFACTION

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

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

    Sub-section 3.1 – control of payment:

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

      Delegations are invited to submit written confirmation of payment to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments).

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

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

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

      Sub-section 3.2 – Decisions on just satisfaction

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

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

    SECTION 4 – CASES RAISING SPECIAL QUESTIONS

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

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

      Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

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

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

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

      Sub-section 4.3 – Special problems

      This title groups together complex cases raising special problems.

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

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

    SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

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

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

      Sub-section 5.1 Legislative and/or regulatory changes

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

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

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

      Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

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

    The Deputies are invited to present all relevant information in writing to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments of the Court).

      Sub-section 5.4 – Other measures

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

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

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

    SECTION 6 CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION

    In these cases, the information available at this meeting on the measures adopted appears to allow the preparation and presentation of a draft resolution putting an end to the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers.

    Supplementary information with respect to the cases in this section will be presented, where necessary, in Addendum 6.

    Examination is in principle to be resumed at the next Human Rights meeting.

      Sub-section 6.1 – cases in which the new information available since the last examination appears to allow the preparation of a draft final resolution

      This sub-section includes cases in which the preparation of a draft final resolution appears to be possible, in the light of new information available since last examination by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee is called to examine this new information with a view to approving the preparation of such a draft.

      Sub-section 6.2 – cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

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

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

    GENERAL QUESTIONS

    a. Adoption of the Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

    Action

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

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

    Action

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

    c. Preparation of the next meeting (863rd (2-3 December 2003)) see page 146

    SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS

    (NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

    (Addendum 1)

    Action

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

    SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

    - 1 case against Austria

    H46-1193 26958 Jerusalem, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    - 1 case against Italy

    H32-1 25650 Santandrea, Interim Resolution DH(99)357

    - 2 cases against Sweden

    H46-2 38629 Lundevall, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46-3 38978 Salomonsson, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    - 1 case against Switzerland

    H46-1412 37292 F.R., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

    SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

    - 3 cases against Austria

    H46-1191 29271 Dichand and others, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

    H46-1194 34315 Krone Verlag Gmbh and Co. Kg., judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

    H46-1195 28525 Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

    - 2 cases against Poland

    H46-4 34611 Dacewicz, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

    H46-5 33885 Kawka Eryk, judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

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

    - 1 case against France

    H46-1245 39066 Donnadieu, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    - 1 case against the United Kingdom

    H54-6 24838 Steel, Lush, Needham, Polden and Cole, judgment of 23/09/98

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

    - 1 case against Austria

    H46-1192 34320 Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Germany

    H46-1293 54999 Axen, Teubner and Jossifov, judgment of 27/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 4 cases against Italy

    H46-7 47247 Mercuri, judgment of 11/04/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-8 20855 Esposito Luigi, judgment of 25/05/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-9 41232 Quartucci, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-10 57636 Gramiccia, judgment of 06/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against the Netherlands

    H46-1366 36499 Samy, judgment of 18/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Poland

    H46-1378 51669 Pałys, judgment of 11/12/01 – Friendly settlement

    - 3 cases against Turkey

    H46-1423 32983 Çavuşoğlu, judgment of 06/03/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1545 31312 Eğinlioğlu, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1541 28002 Tamer, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    SECTION 2 - NEW CASES

    Action

    The Deputies are invited to hold a first examination, under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the ECHR, of the following new judgments, delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (for further information, see the text of the judgments, http://www.echr.coe.int).

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

    PAYMENT OF JUST SATISFACTION

    In all the new cases in which States should pay just satisfaction as ordered by the Court or as agreed in a friendly settlement, the authorities of the respondent State are invited to provide the Secretariat, in writing, with confirmations of payment.

    INDIVIDUAL AND/OR GENERAL MEASURES

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

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

    In all these cases, just satisfaction or sums agreed under a friendly settlement has been awarded to the applicants except in the following case: Willekens, Anagnostopoulos, Satka and others (satisfaction reserved), Papastavrou (satisfaction reserved) and Ipsilanti.

    Section 2

    - 3 cases against Austria

    H46-11 36812+ Sylvester, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

    The case concerns the failure of the Austrian authorities to enforce a final court decision, rendered in December 1995 under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, that ordered that the first applicant’s daughter (the second applicant, born in 1994), unlawfully taken away by her mother, should be returned to him. After an unsuccessful attempt to enforce that decision, the Austrian Courts set aside the enforcement order on the grounds that, due to the considerable lapse of time since the two year old child had lost contact with her father (one and a half years), there would be a risk of grave psychological harm if she was separated from her mother, who had become her main person of reference. Subsequently, the second applicant’s mother was awarded sole custody of the second applicant. The European Court found that the Austrian authorities had failed to take, without delay, the necessary measures in order to enforce the return order, allowing therefore the passage of time to determine the outcome of the custody proceedings (violation of Article 8).

    Possible individual or general measures: publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all competent authorities dealing with the application of the Hague Convention; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    H46-12 43454 Bakker, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

    The case concerns the fact that, in 1998, the applicant was denied an oral hearing before the Administrative Court in the context of administrative proceedings concerning the denial of authorisation to exercise his profession as a self-employed physiotherapist (violation of Article 6§1).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court. Following the case of Stallinger and Kuso (ResDH (97) 405), an amendment to Section 39§2(6) of the Administrative Court Act entered into force on 01/09/1997. According to the new provision, "notwithstanding a party’s application, the Administrative Court may decide not to hold a hearing ... if this is not against Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights" (§24 of the Court’s judgment). The question of whether this law can remedy violations in cases similar to the present one remains to be discussed at the meeting.

    H46-13 35021+ Kolb and others, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

    The case concerns the excessive length of three sets of proceedings before the Administrative Court in the context of land consolidation proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings lasted: 7 years and 8 months as regards the first applicant and ended in May 1996; 10 years and 4 months as regards the second applicant and ended in January 1999, 9½ years as regards the third and fourth applicants and ended in March 1998.

    The case also concerns the fact that, in 1991, the Provincial Board dismissed the first applicant’s complaints without a public hearing. In 1996, the Administrative Court also dismissed his appeal without a hearing and without identifying any exceptional circumstances that might have justified dispensing with a hearing (violation of Article 6§1).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: As regards the excessive length of proceedings, the case presents similarities with the G.S. case which appears in Section 6.2 following the measures already adopted (in particular the Administrative Reform Act 2001, which entered into force on 20/04/2002, which transferred competence from the Administrative Court to the Independent Administrative Tribunals in the Länder and completed the computerisation of the courts’ administrative services).

    As regards the lack of a public hearing, the Federal Agricultural Proceedings Act has been amended and hearings before the land reform boards became public (§§ 42 and 58 of the Court’s judgment). The 2nd, 3rd and 4th applicants’ complaints were examined before the Provincial or the Supreme Boards after the adoption of this Act and a public hearing was held (§§ 31 and 39 of the Court’s judgment).

    Section 2

    - 2 cases against Belgium

    Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46-14 52229 Gillet, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

    H46-15 50859 Willekens, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

    These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In the case of Gillet, the proceedings started on 25/05/1992 and were still pending when the Court delivered its judgment (more than 10 years and 10 months, for two degrees of jurisdiction). In the case of Willekens, the proceedings started on 17/09/1981 and ended on 28/03/2001 (more than 19 years and 6 months).

    The European Court recalled that the chronic overload of a court (in the present cases, the Brussels Court of Appeal) did not provide a valid justification for the excessive length of proceedings.

    The cases present similarities with that of Oval S.P.R.L., which will be examined in sub-section 4.2 of the present annotated agenda and order of business.

    Possible individual measures: acceleration of the proceedings still pending in the Gillet case.

    - 1 case against Bulgaria

    H46-16 37104 Kitov, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

    The case concerns the excessive length of two sets of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant (violation of Article 6§1). The first set of proceedings, which started on 27/05/1993, was partially still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (about 8 years and 11 months). The second set of proceedings started on 27/03/1995 and ended on 15/10/1999 (at the stage of preliminary investigation) (about 4 years and 5 months).

    Possible individual measure: Acceleration of the pending proceedings.

    Possible general measures: Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment, together with a circular, to criminal courts, prosecutors and preliminary investigation authorities drawing their attention to the conclusions and the concrete suggestions of the Court on the problems found (especially §§ 71, 73 and §§ 81-83); other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    - 1 case against Croatia

    H46-17 47863 Šoć, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 09/08/03

    In this case, the European Court held that the applicant had had no effective domestic remedy available to challenge the length of two sets of civil proceedings, which started in 1994 and 1997 and ended in 2002, as the request pursuant to Section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act does not apply to proceedings that have already come to an end (violation of Article 13).

    General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published on the internet site of the Croatian government www.vlada.hr; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    - 1 case against the Czech Republic

    *H46-18 40226 Červeňáková and others, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns first the alleged inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted upon the applicants on the occasion of their alleged forced displacement to the Slovak Republic and then, of their return to the Czech Republic (complaint under Article 3). Secondly, it concerns the alleged violation of the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life due to the living conditions that they were forced to face after their return to the Czech Republic and especially due to their expulsion from their former apartments (complaint under Article 8). Thirdly, the case concerns the length of the civil proceedings concerning their tenancy agreements and the protection of their dignity (complaint under Article 6§1), as well as the absence of any remedies offered by domestic law concerning the length of national proceedings (complaint under Article 13). Lastly, the case concerns the allegation of discriminatory treatment, either taken alone or in conjunction with the applicants’ other complaints, due to their Rom origin (complaint under Article 14).

    Section 2

    - 1 case against Cyprus

    *H46-19 62242 Gregoriou, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 09/07/03

    The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before the Nicosia District Court and the Supreme Court (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 12/08/1985 and ended on 29/11/1999 (more than 14 years and 3 months).

    The case presents similarities with the Mavronichis case (Resolution DH(99)465). In the present case significant delays were due to re-hearings of the case before different benches of the courts because certain of the participating judges retired or resigned or were appointed to another court (see §§ 26-27, 33-34 and 43 of the judgment of the European Court).

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

    - 2 cases against Finland

    *H46-20 37801 Suominen, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 22/07/034

    The case concerns the unfairness of civil proceedings on account of the failure by the District Court to give reasons for its refusal to admit certain evidence proposed by the applicant, this failure having hindered her from appealing in an effective way against that refusal (violation of Article 6§1).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court judgment to the judicial authorities.

    *H46-21 52529 Hyvönen, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    This case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings against him, on account of the rejection of the reasons he gave for his absence from the hearing of the court of appeal and of the consequent striking-out of his appeal without his counsel being allowed to plead (complaints under Articles 6§§1, 3c and 3d). The case also concerns the applicant’s complaint that he could not have his conviction reviewed by a higher court (complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7)

    - 15 cases against France

    H46-22 44962 Yvon, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

    The case concerns an infringement of the principle of equality of arms on account of the privileged position of the Government Commissioner in proceedings before the expropriations judge and of the advantages he enjoys in terms of access to relevant information published in the land registry index (violation of Article 6§1).

    This case has to be distinguished from the Kress case which appears in sub-section 4.2 of the present annotated agenda and order of business, insofar as, despite an identical title, the Government Commissioner has not the same function before ordinary administrative jurisdictions as before the expropriations judge. Before the latter, the Government Commissioner is party to the proceedings for assessing compensation, his main role being to ensure that the compensation allocated to the party whose land has been expropriated does not exceed the real value of the expropriated property. The interests he defends are similar to those defended by the expropriating authority and he is sometimes - as in the present case - a member of the same administration, or even of the same department as the representative of the expropriating authority (see § 30 of the judgment). However, the Government Commissioner being a tax official, has full access to the land registry index listing all transfers of property, whereas the expropriated party’s access is limited. Furthermore, he plays a dominant role in the procedure: he addresses the judge last, is not obliged at first instance to notify

    Section 2

    his written submissions to the parties or to inform them of their filing in the registry and has considerable influence over the judge’s decision. According to the European Court, these circumstances create an imbalance to the detriment of the party whose land had been expropriated, in breach of the principle of equality of arms (see §§ 33 to 37 of the judgment).

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

    H46-23 49533 Barrillot, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings which started on 09/06/1993 with the applicant’s detention in police custody and ended with his acquittal by the regional Criminal Court of Lyon on 21/01/1999 (5 years and 7 months for one degree of instance) (violation of Article 6§1).

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

Item

Application

Case

Subject and length of proceedings

Case pending

H46-24

44482

Hutt-Claus, judgment

of 10/04/2003, final on 10/07/2003

Proceedings concerning inheritance division from 06/12/1993 to 18/05/2000 (when record was made of the difficulties encountered) (6 years and more than 5 months). When the European Court delivered its judgment, none of the parties had put the questions still to be solved before the competent court.

No

H46-25

50267

Kornblum, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

- Proceedings concerning bankruptcy: from 03/11/1987 to 12/12/2000 (more than 13 years and 1 month)

- Compensation proceedings: from 12/09/1991 to 03/12/1998 (more than 7 years and nearly 3 months)

No

H46-26

55926

Loyen and others,

judgment of 29/04/2003,

final on 29/07/2003

Compensation proceedings from 30/11/1994 as

far as the two first applicants are concerned

(more than 8 years and 3 months) and from 23/08/1990 as far as the third applicant (their daughter) is concerned (more than 12 years

and 6 months).

Yes

H46-27

48566

Richart-Luna, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

Proceedings concerning a road accident from 22/04/1988 to 22/01/2002 (13 years and 9 months)

No

*H46-28

49198

Schiettecatte, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 09/07/2003

Commercial proceedings from 17/05/1985 to 23/03/1999 (more than 13 years and 10 months)

No

    These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

    The case of Loyen and others also concerns the fact that, when the application was made, no effective remedy was available in respect of excessive length of the proceedings before civil courts (on this point the European Court noted that application for compensation under article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had, since the facts at the origin of the present case, acquired sufficient legal certainty to be considered as effective; see the Court’s decisions in the cases of Nouhaud and others of 09/07/2002 and Mifsud of 11/09/2002) (violation of the article 13).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: acceleration of the procedure in the case of Loyen and others.

    Section 2

        - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

Item

Application

Case

Length of proceedings

Pending cases

Proceedings started on

*H46-29

56927

Appietto, judgment of 25/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

9 years and approximately 2 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

19/03/90

*H46-30

54367

Bufferne, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

6 years, 5 months and 19 days (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

30/11/92

H46-31

62274

Jarlan, judgment of 15/04/2003, final on 15/07/2003

4 years, 4 months and 10 days (1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

19/02/96

H46-32

46096

Mocie, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

First set of proceedings:

14 years and 10 months

Yes

20/05/88

Second set of proceedings: almost 8 years (1 prior administrative request et 3 degrees of jurisdiction).

No

24/04/90

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

    In the cases of Bufferne and Mocie, the European Court underlined that, in the light of the particular importance of the proceedings for the respective applicants (in the Bufferne case: industrial dispute concerning the granting of unemployment benefit; in the Mocie case: increase, in the light of the applicant’s health deterioration, of a disability pension which constituted the major part of the applicant's income), these proceedings should have been treated with a particular diligence by the authorities.

    These cases present similarities with the case of Sapl and the other cases concerning the length of proceedings before the administrative courts, in sub-section 4.2 of the present agenda and order of business.

    Possible individual and/or general measures: in the case of Mocie, acceleration of the first set of proceedings if they are still pending; publication and dissemination to the relevant authorities of the judgments of the European Court in the cases of Bufferne and Mocie.

    *H46-33 43543 Loyen René II, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    This case concerns the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nancy, which started on 12/08/1994 and ended with the court’s judgment on 4/12/1997 (complaint under Article 6§1).

        - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

Item

Application

Case

Length of proceedings

Pending cases

Proceedings started on

H46-34

50975

Jarreau, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

10 years, 4 months and 9 days (4 degrees of jurisdiction + execution judge)

No

18/03/91

H46-35

50331

Julien Ferdinand, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

More than 11 years and 4 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

14/10/91

H46-36

42277

Jussy, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

7 years, 4 months and 23 days (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

22/01/93

    These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violations of Article 6§1). The European Court recalled its case-law according to which industrial conflicts have to be resolved particularly promptly, as they concern issues of major importance for the professional situation of a person.

    Section 2

    With regard to the excessive length of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, the Jussy case seems to present similarities to that of Hermant (Final Resolution ResDH(2003)88). As far as the excessive length of proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence is concerned, this case, as well as the Jarreau case, also presents similarities to the case of Bozza (Final Resolution ResDH(2002)63).

    Possible individual or general measures: acceleration of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Versailles in the case of Julien Ferdinand; publication of the judgment of the European Court in the case of Julien Ferdinand and dissemination to the relevant authorities; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    - 3 cases against Germany

    *H46-37 30943 Sahin, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

    *H46-38 31871 Sommerfeld, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

    These cases concern the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicants’ request for access to their respective children, born out of wedlock. The European Court found that the applicants had suffered discriminatory treatment insofar as Section 1634§1 of the Civil Code provided, at the time of the facts, for different and unjustified criteria making it more difficult for fathers of children born out of wedlock than for divorced fathers of children born in wedlock to obtain custody of their children (violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 8).

    In addition, in the Sommerfeld case, the Court found similarly that the applicant had suffered a discriminatory treatment in that he could not file a further appeal under Section 63a of the Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings which was, at the time of the facts, available only to divorced fathers of children born in wedlock (violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 8).

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

    H46-39 52853 Yilmaz Saldiray, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

    The case concerns the fact that the expulsion of the applicant to Turkey by an administrative decision of 04/09/1998 (final on 29/10/1999), combined with an indefinite exclusion from German territory, amounted to a disproportionate interference in the applicant’s right to family life, taking into account the circumstances of the case, namely his family situation, in particular the birth of his son on February 1999, and the fact that he benefited from a permanent residence permit in Germany when the expulsion order was made (violation of Article 8).

    On 07/03/2000 the applicant left Germany for Turkey. On 15/06/2000, the administrative authority of the Allgäu district refused, for the time being, the granting of a provisional residence permit to visit his son.

    Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court to the authorities concerned; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting. The dissemination of the judgment has already been confirmed by the German delegation.

    - 9 cases against Greece

    H46-40 54589 Anagnostopoulos, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

    The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the fact that, during criminal proceedings in which the applicant had claimed damages in 1994, the delay with which the relevant authorities examined the case caused the prosecution of the offences to become time-barred and, consequently, made it impossible for the applicant to have his compensation claim determined before the criminal courts (violation of Article 6§1).

    Possible individual or/and general measures: The applicant is entitled to introduce his claims for compensation before the civil courts. The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its wide dissemination to prosecution authorities, accompanied by a circular drawing their attention to the need for prompt completion of the prosecution procedures would be useful. Other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    Section 2

    H46-42 64825 Halatas, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the authorities’ refusal to comply with a judicial decision had infringed her right to effective judicial protection and her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions (complaint under Articles 6§1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1).

    This aspect of the case presents similarities in particular to the cases of Hornsby (judgment of 19/03/1997) and Iatridis (judgment of 25/03/1999) which appear in sub-section 6.2 following a number of general measures already adopted.

    The case also concerns the length of the compensation proceedings against the state before the administrative courts and the Supreme Administrative Court (complaint under Article 6§1).

    This aspect of the case presents similarities, in particular to the case of Pafitis and others (judgment of 26/02/1998) and a group of other cases which appear in sub-section 6.2 following a number of general measures already adopted.

    H46-43 55828 Satka and others, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 27/06/03

    The case concerns the fact that the repeated interventions by the State rendered ineffective two judicial decisions revoking the expropriation of the applicants’ land in 1953 and 2000, because of the State’s refusal to pay the applicants the compensation fixed by the courts (violation of Article 6§1).

    The aspect of the case concerning the State’s refusal to pay the compensation awarded presents similarities in particular to those of Hornsby (judgment of 19/03/97) and Iatridis (judgment of 25/03/99) which appear in sub-section 6.2 following the constitutional and legislative measures already adopted in order to reinforce the administration’s obligation to comply with judicial decisions (Article 95 §§ 4-5 of the revised Constitution, Act 3068/12/11/2002 establishing a specific judicial monitoring of the administration and allowing seizure against the state’s private property).

    The case also concerns the fact that the applicants have not been able to use their land since 1991: the adoption of successive decrees amending the regional development plan which classified the land concerned as being for public use, as well as the conduct of the local authorities aimed at preventing the applicants from using their land, showed that the authorities’ aim was to appropriate the properties, without bringing expropriation proceedings within a reasonable length of time or paying compensation to the applicants (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its wide dissemination to the competent authorities would be useful. Other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    H46-44 46372 Papastavrou, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

    The case concerns a breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In 1994, the prefect of Athens ordered the reafforestation of plots possessed in good faith by the applicants. This decision was based on a similar decision taken by the Minister of Agriculture in 1934, covering the same plots, and was taken without a fresh reassessment of whether the plots in question were forests or not. The applicants’ appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court was declared inadmissible on the sole ground that the prefect’s decision was not an executory act but simply confirming the 1934 decision. The European Court considered that the absence of reassessment of the situation by the prefect and the reasoning followed by the Supreme Administrative Court had deprived the applicants of adequate protection, in particular taking into account that there is no possibility of obtaining compensation under Greek law in such cases, (where the property rights have not been finally determined by a court), (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: The judgment was published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its wide dissemination to the Supreme Administrative Court as well as to the competent administrative authorities of the country accompanied by a circular would be useful; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    Section 2

    H46-46 56599 Ipsilanti, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

    H46-45 59506 Papageorgiou Georgios, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 09/08/03

    The cases concern the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In the first case, the proceedings lasted 6 years and 6 months for three levels of jurisdiction and ended in February 2002. In the second case, the proceedings lasted 9 years and 6 months and ended in November 1999.

    These cases present similarities to certain other cases against Greece (Philis 2, Stamoulakatos, Agga and others), which appear in sub-section 6.2 following a number of general measures already adopted.

    The second case also concerns the refusal of the domestic courts to order production of the originals of essential pieces of evidence for the defence of the applicant who was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for deception (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3d).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: The judgments of the European Court have been published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr).

    In the Papageorgiou case, the judgment has been disseminated to criminal courts. As regards individual measures, Article 525 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as modified by the Law N° 2865/2000 (which entered into force on 19/12/2000), allows the individuals as well as the Prosecutor to request the reopening of domestic proceedings following a judgment of the European Court finding a violation of a right covered by the Convention. Consequently, the applicant has the right to request the reopening of the domestic proceedings.

    H46-47 53401 Konti-Arvaniti, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

    The case concerns the excessive length (more than 14 years and 11 months) of certain civil proceedings which started in April 1988. When the European Court delivered its judgment, the proceedings were still pending at appeal (violation of Article 6§1).

    This aspect of the case presents similarities in particular to those of Academy Trading Ltd (judgment of 04/04/2000) and LSI Information Technologies (judgment of 20/12/2001) which appear in sub-section 6.2 following a number of general measures already adopted.

    The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy allowing the applicant to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings (violation of Article 13).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: Acceleration of the proceedings. The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to civil courts; other measures to be discussed at the meeting in respect of the violation of Article 13.

    *H46-48 52903 Dactylidi, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 09/07/03

    The case concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings relating to civil rights and obligations before the Supreme Administrative Court. The first set of proceedings started in August 1992 and ended in October 1999 (7 years and 2 months) and the second started in April 1995 and ended in October 1999 (4 years and 6½ months) (violations of Article 6§1).

    This aspect of the case presents similarities to the cases of Pafitis (judgment of 26/02/98), Varipati (judgment of 26/10/99), etc. which appear in Section 6.2 following the constitutional and legislative measures already adopted (Article 95§3 of the revised Constitution, Act 2721/03/06/1999 and Act 2944/08/10/2001) in order to reduce the work-load of the Supreme Administrative Court.

    The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy allowing the applicant to submit her arguable complaint in respect of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property and therefore to compel the administration to comply with certain decisions that had been taken by its own institutions concerning the demolition of illegal premises built on the property of one of the applicant’s neighbours’ (violation of Article 13).

    Possible individual and/or general measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official Internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr); wide dissemination of the judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court and to the competent administrative authorities of the country; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    Section 2

    H46-49 56625 Koumoutsea, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

    The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings lasted 9 years and 4 months for three levels of jurisdiction (of which 7 years before the Supreme Administrative Court) and ended in October 1999.

    As regards the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, the case presents similarities with the group of cases Pafitis etc. which appear in sub-section 6.2 following the general measures already adopted (especially Article 95§3 of the Constitution and its executive implementing legislation, Act No. 2944/08/10/2001, which transfer competence to deal with certain types of applications for judicial review to the administrative courts in order to relieve the Supreme Administrative Court).

    - 2 cases against Hungary

    *H46-51 36186 Tímár, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 09/07/03

    H46-50 42961 Simkó, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

    These cases concern the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 06/02/1990 and 09/10/1992 and ended on 06/08/2001 and 08/04/1998 (11 years and 6 months and 5 years and 6 months, of which the periods of 8 years and 9 months and 5 years and 5 months respectively fall within the Court’s jurisdiction).

    Possible general measures: publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgments to civil courts; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    - 1 case against Iceland

    H46-52 39731 Sigurđsson, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

    The case concerns the lack of objective impartiality of the Supreme Court of Iceland which had in 1997 rejected the applicant’s appeal in certain compensation proceedings he had brought against the National Bank of Iceland because of the close and important financial relationships between judge of the Supreme Court and her husband and the National Bank of Iceland (violation of Article 6§1).

    The applicant lodged two petitions with the Supreme Court requesting the reopening of the proceedings. These petitions were rejected in July and October 1997.

    Possible individual or general measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    Section 2

    - 22 cases against Italy

        - 18 cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

Item

Application

Case

Judgment of

Final on

Duration of the violation

Pending procedure

H46-53

38011

Aponte

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

6 years and 11 months

No

H46-54

34999

C. Spa

03/04/2003

03/07/2003

10 years;

7 years;

11 years;

8 years;

11 years

No

H46-55

45006

Capurso

03/04/2003

03/07/2003

13 years and 3 months

No

H46-56

37117

De Benedittis

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

7 years and 10 months

No

H46-57

41427

Del Beato

03/04/2003

03/07/2003

6 years and 6 months

No

H46-58

48145

Fabi

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

11 years and 7 months

No

H46-59

39735

Fegatelli

03/04/2003

03/07/2003

12 years and 5 months

No

*H46-60

43580

G.G. VI

03/04/2003

09/07/2003

4 years and 2 months

No

H46-61

41610

L.M. VII

03/04/2003

03/07/2003

8 years and 6 months

No

H46-62

36149

Losanno and Vanacore

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

7 years and 2 months

No

H46-63

42343

Malescia

03/04/2003

03/07/2003

6 years and 4 months

No

H46-64

35024

Nigiotti and Mori

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

8 years and 6 months

No

H46-65

34998

P.M. II

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

10 years and 5 months

No

H46-66

37008

Pannocchia

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

8 years and 7 months

No

H46-67

46161

Pepe Giuseppa

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

5 years and 10 months

No

H46-68

59539

Pulcini

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

10 years and 10 months

No

H46-69

36249

Rosa Massimo

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

4 years and 4 months

No

H46-70

36377

Zannetti

17/04/2003

17/07/2003

5 years and 7 months

No

    These cases mainly concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions. The European Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the protection of the applicants’ right to property and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Furthermore, the Court concluded that, as a result of the legislation at issue, rendering eviction orders nugatory, the applicants had been deprived of their right to have their disputes decided by a court, contrary to the principle of the rule of law (violations of Article 6§1).

    All these cases are similar to the case of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99, under sub-section 4.2 of this document.

    General measures: A law was adopted in December 1998 (Law No. 431/98 “Regulations concerning the renting and the repossession of housing”), which sets - inter alia - the conditions, modalities and deadlines for the enforcement of eviction decisions. However, this law has not solved the problems at the origin of these cases and it is still difficult in Italy to have eviction decisions enforced, notably due to the lack of police forces available for this task, to the recurrent adoption of new legislation suspending evictions (for example, they are currently suspended until 30/06/2004 as regards certain categories of tenants) and to the tenants’ and State’s impunity in case of non-enforcement of judicial decisions. According to statistical data forwarded by the Italian authorities on 04/07/2003, concerning the period 1983-2002, the number of eviction orders implemented has remained stable around 18 000 per year. On the other hand, following the adoption of the Law of 1998, the number of requests of implementation of eviction orders decreased by 23,64% between 1998 and 1999, from 126 011 to 96 219 and the number of eviction procedures also decreased from 50 226 in 1997 to 37 610 in 2002. By letter of 19/06/2001, the Italian authorities informed the Committee that the Ministry for Home Affairs was approaching the other competent departments in order to identify further and more effective measures, both on the administrative and legislative level, notably with a view to simplifying the proceedings. Information is expected on the outcome of the ongoing reflections.

    Section 2

        - 4 friendly settlements concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

    *H46-71 48728 Blasetti, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-72 60662 Nuti, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-73 60661 Rogai, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-74 46471 L.B. and others, judgment of 31/07/03 - Friendly settlement

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

    These cases are similar to the case of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99, which appears in sub-section 4.2 of this document.

    - 18 cases against Poland

    Cases of length of civil proceedings5

Item

Application

Case

Length of proceedings

Pending cases

Proceedings started on

H46-75

46034

Gryziecka and Gryziecki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

More than 16 years and 6 months6 (one degree of jurisdiction)

No

31/08/81

H46-76

52168

Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

More than 13 years and 8 months7 (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

10/06/88

H46-77

40887

Maliszewski, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

8 years and four months8 (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

14/03/91

H46-78

74816

Orzeł, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03

13 years9 (pending before the appellate court, after an initial judgment of the first instance court was quashed )

Yes

23/03/90

H46-79

51429

Paśnicki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

More than 12 years and 10 months10 (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

14/05/90

H46-80

39619

Piłka Andrzej and Barbara, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

14 years and 3 months11 (pending before the court of first instance, after the judgments rendered by this one had been quashed twice by the appellate court)

Yes

02/01/89

H46-81

77597

R.O., judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03

More than 8 years12 (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

26/01/93

*H46-82

40694

Sobański, judgment of 21/01/03, revised on 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03, rectified on 17/09/03

8 years and 10 months13 (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

27/02/93

    Section 2

    These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

    In the cases of Orzeł, R.O. and Sobanski, and, the Court noted that the proceedings in question dealt with issues of particular importance for the applicants.

    Possible individual measures: Accelerate the proceedings still pending at national level in the cases of Orzeł, Paśnicki and Piłka Andrzej and Barbara.

    These cases present similarities to the other cases relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (inter alia, Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/2001) for examination under sub-section 5.1 of this meeting for supervision of general measures.

    *H46-83 58780 Dragan, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-91 53551 Godlewski, judgment of 08/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-84 76158 M.M. and E.M.M., judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-85 8205 Mikulska, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-86 71009 Nowakowski, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-87 45957 Pawlinkowska, judgment of 08/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-88 6901 Sagan, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-89 67162 Skóra, judgment of 01/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-90 61888 Wysocka-Cysarz, judgment of 01/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    These cases concern the length of civil proceedings (complaints under Article 6§1).

    *H46-92 64120 Niziuk, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    This case concerns the length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant (complaint under Article 6§1).

    - 6 cases against Portugal

    H46-93 50775 Sousa Marinho and Marinho Meireles Pinto, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

    The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 01/02/1993 and finished on 27/01/1999 (5 years, 11 months and 27 days).

    In this case, the European Court noted the overload of the Porto Court of Appeal.

    Possible general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

    H46-94 54704 Ferreira Pinto, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns the length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts (complaint under Article 6§1).

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46-95 54926 Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/03, final on 30/07/03

    H46-96 53997 Dias da Silva and Ribeiro Martins, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 27/06/03

    H46-97 53534 Esteves, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

    *H46-98 34422 Ferreira Matos Oliveira Modesto and others, judgment of 08/06/00, final on 08/09/00

    These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). Proceedings in the Costa Ribeiro case started on 25/02/1994 and were still pending before the Vila Nova de Gaia Tribunal when the European Court delivered its judgment (9 years and 9 months). Proceedings in the Dias Da Silva and Gomes Ribeiro Martins case started on 26/03/1996 and were still pending before the Matosinhos Tribunal when the European Court delivered its judgment (6 years and 11 months). Proceedings

    Section 2

    in the Esteves case started on 05/05/1994 and were still pending before the Lisbon Tribunal when the European Court delivered its judgment (8 years and 10 months). Proceedings in the Oliveira Modesto and others case started on 05/02/1988 and were still pending before the Aveiro Tribunal at the date of the delivery of the judgment of the Court (12 years and 3 months).

    The European Court noted the overload of the Lisbon tribunal in the Esteves case.

    Possible individual measures: acceleration of the domestic proceedings in the four cases. In this respect, in the cases of Costa Ribeiro (affiliation proceedings) and Oliveira Modesto and others (bankruptcy proceedings), the European Court underlined that, in the light of the specific importance of the proceedings for the respective applicants, these proceedings should have been treated with a special diligence by the authorities.

    Possible general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

    - 4 cases against Romania

    H46-99 31804 Chiriacescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    H46-100 32915 Ghitescu, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46-101 31172 Popa and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46-102 31551 Stoicescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    These cases concern the Supreme Court’s annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to property that had been previously nationalised. The Supreme Court intervened following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions. The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicants’ right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicants’ right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised the courts’ jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1). Finally, the European Court found that the Supreme Court’s decisions had violated the applicants’ right to respect for their possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation final court decisions that recognised the applicants’ property rights to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

    These cases present similarities to the case of Brumărescu (judgments of 28/10/99 and 23/01/01) and other similar cases against Romania which will be examined in sub-section 4.2 of this meeting for supervision of general measures (amendment of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

    Just satisfaction and/or individual measures: Regarding the Stoicescu case, by a letter of 10/07/03, the applicant informed the Secretariat that he can no longer benefit from the judgment of the European Court concerning the just satisfaction awarded for pecuniary damage (the restitution of the property at issue or the payment of its current value) following a court judgment taken at national level that denies him the right to inherit the assets of the former owner of the property at issue. By a letter of 04/09/03, the Romanian delegation informed the Secretariat that the Romanian authorities have lodged a request for revision of the judgment of the European Court based on the loss of his victim status in this case. Therefore, the delegation proposes to postpone examination of this case pending the outcome of the revision procedure before the Court.

    Section 2

    - 2 cases against the Slovak Republic

    H46-103 57983 Slovák, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

    H46-104 53372 D.K., judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

    These cases concern the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 02/01/1995 and 15/01/1996 and were still pending at national level when the European Court delivered its judgments (about 8 years and 4 months and 7 years and 2 months respectively).

    General measures have already been adopted to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and avoid new violations, particularly in the context of the examination of the Jóri case which appears in Sub-section 6.2.

    Possible individual measures: Acceleration of the pending proceedings at national level.

    - 1 case against Spain

    H46-105 56673 Iglesias Gil and A.U.I., judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    The case concern the violation of the applicants’ right to respect of their family life in that that national authorities had not deployed adequate and sufficient efforts to guarantee that Ms Iglesias Gil’s custody rights in respect of her son and the rights of the child to return to her mother be respected (violation of Article 8).

    By a decision of 20/121996, Ms Iglesias was given custody of the applicant A.U.I. (born on 07/12/1995). On 01/02/1997, the child was kidnapped by his father and removed from Spanish territory. On 08/06/2000, the child was returned to his mother.

    Possible general measures: Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the authorities concerned.

    - 12 cases against Turkey

    *H46-108 37021 Avcı Zeynep, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 09/07/03

    The case concerns the applicant’s prolonged and unlawful detention in police custody in 1996 (21 days) and her inability to challenge promptly the lawfulness of her detention before a court (violation of Article 5§§ 1, 3 and 4). Her custody period exceeded the permissible time-limits provided for by the national law at the relevant time.

    This case presents similarities to that of Sakık and others against Turkey (judgment of 26/11/1997) which was closed by a final resolution, ResDH(2002)110, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

    H46-109 29863 Barut, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns the length of the applicant’s detention in police custody in 1995 and the fact that he could not challenge the lawfulness of his detention (complaints under Article 5, §§3 and 4).

    Section 2

    H46-106 27244 Tepe İsak, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 19/08/03

    The case relates to the authorities' failure to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicant's son in August 1993 in the province of Bitlis (South-East of Turkey) (violations of Articles 2 and 13). The European Court found that the authorities failed to take into account all the possible leads that might have indicated the persons responsible for the killing, failed to obtain information from all the allegedly essential witnesses and failed to conduct a full forensic autopsy carried out by a qualified forensic expert.

    The Court also found a violation of Article 38§1(a) concerning the State’s obligation to co-operate with the Court in establishing the facts of the case.

    Possible Individual and general measures: This case raises similar issues to those raised by certain other cases concerning actions of the security forces in Turkey, which appear in sub-section 4.2 of the present annotated agenda and order of business. Other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

    - Friendly settlement concerning Actions of the Turkish security forces containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

    *H46-110 42591 Kılıç Özgür, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-111 28632 Sünnetçi, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-112 38382 Toktaş, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-113 32270 Doğan Ülkü and others, judgment of 19/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-114 41926 Sarı Ramazan, judgment of 31/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    Theses cases concern in particular the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment during custody or questioning between 1994 and 1995 (complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13).

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

    The complaints and the governmental undertakings here at issue present similarities with those made in a number of other friendly settlements relating to actions of the Turkish security forces. They will be re-examined at the present meeting for supervision of their implementation.

    - Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for

    expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

    H46-115 37094 Hattatoğlu, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-116 35983 Gür, judgment of 24/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    These cases concern alleged breaches of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the administration's delay in paying additional compensation for expropriation of their property and the difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time to the debts owed to the State and the average rate of inflation in Turkey (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

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

    Section 2

    - Cases concerning independence and impartiality of the state security courts

    H46-117 27696 Yalçın Halit, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    *H46-118 28018 Kaya Yusuf, judgment of 24/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    These cases concern the applicants’ claim that they did not have a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court, on account of the presence of a military judge sitting in the state security court which convicted them (complaint under Article 6§1). The applicants also complained of an infringement of the presumption of innocence and of the absence of legal assistance during their detention in police custody and lack of time and facilities to prepare their defence (complaints under Articles 6§§2 and 3).

    - 4 cases against Ukraine

    H46-119 41220 Aliev, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46-120 40679 Dankevich, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46-121 39483 Nazarenko, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46-122 41707 Khokhlich, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    The cases concern the poor conditions of the applicants' detention between 1996 and 2000 on “death row” in three different prisons in Ukraine, found by the European Court to amount to degrading treatment due in particular to their prolonged confinement in very restricted living space without natural light and the virtual impossibility of any activity or human contact (violations of Article 3). The Court also found that the Ukrainian authorities' interferences with the applicants' rights to private and family life and correspondence were not in accordance with the law as their detention was governed until 1999 by an internal instruction inaccessible to the public (violations of Articles 8). In the Dankevich case the Court also held that the applicant had not had an effective remedy in respect of his claims under the Convention (violation of Article 13).

    Besides the question relating to an effective remedy, these cases present similarities to those of Kuznetsov and Poltoratskiy (judgments of 29/04/03) which will be been examined in sub-section 4.2 of the 863rd meeting (December 2003).

    The death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment in June 2000 following the abolition of the death penalty in Ukraine.

    Possible general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

    - 4 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46-123 50390 McGlinchey and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment suffered prior to her death by a prisoner addicted to heroin who was mother of the first two applicants and daughter of the third applicant. The European Court found in particular that the prison authorities failed to provide accurate means of monitoring her weight loss, that despite her worrying health condition there was a gap of two days in the monitoring of her condition by a doctor, and that she was not admitted to hospital quickly enough (violation of Article 3).

    The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy allowing an examination of the standard of care given in prison and the possibility of obtaining damages (violation of Article 13).

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

    *H46-124 34962 Z.W., judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns the applicant’s complaints that the local authority had failed to protect her welfare while she was in foster care and that she had had no remedy for her complaints (complaints under Articles 3 and 13).

    Section 2

    *H46-125 52770 Brown, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about an investigation into his sexual orientation and about his discharge from the Royal Air Force pursuant to the Ministry of Defence’s policy, at the relevant time, against homosexuals in the armed forces (complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14).

    In June 2003, the applicant’s solicitors confirmed to the European Court that they had received payment of the sums agreed and that it was in full and final settlement of all their claims.

    The Court noted (§13) that, following its judgment in the case of Smith and Grady (judgment of 27/12/1999), the former policy of the Ministry of Defence was abandoned and homosexuals have been allowed to serve in the United Kingdom armed forces since 12/01/2000 (see in particular the resolution adopted in the case of Smith and Grady, ResDH(2002)35).

    *H46-126 36022 Hatton and others, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

    The case concerns the way in which the applicants were affected by the implementation of the new 1993 scheme for regulating night flights at Heathrow airport in London and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect. The European Court found that the scope of review by the domestic courts was limited to classic English public law concepts (such as unlawfulness and patent unreasonableness) and did not at the time allow consideration of whether the claimed increase in night flights under the 1993 Scheme represented a justifiable limitation on the right to respect for the private and family lives or the homes of those who live in the vicinity of Heathrow airport (violation of Article 13).

    In a letter of 08/09/2003 the applicants asked the Committee of Ministers to take measures in order to ensure that they would be able to bring their complaints before domestic courts.

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

    SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

    Action

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

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

    At the time of issuing the present Annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the Secretariat had not received the written confirmation of payment of just satisfaction and/or default interest in the following cases (see the table below summarising the total number of cases by States). The Representatives of the States concerned are invited to give the Secretariat written confirmation of payment of the sums awarded by the Court and/or the default interests.

    - 2 cases against Austria

    H46-127 36757 Jakupovic, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/23

    H46-128 39392+ L. and V., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    - 10 cases against Belgium

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46-129 49497 Teret, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03 – Striking-out

    H46-130 50567 Immo Fond’Roy S.A., judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of civil proceedings14

    H46-131 50855 Dautel, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46-132 49797 De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-133 49522 Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-134 49546 Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-135 50624 Gökce and others, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46-136 49794 Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-137 49495 S.A. Sitram, judgment of15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46-138 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/0215

    - 2 cases against Bulgaria

    H46-139 38822 Shishkov, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-140 38884 Nikolov, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    - 5 cases against the Czech Republic

    H46-141 46129 Zvolský and Zvolská, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46-142 47273 Běleš and others, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46-143 36548 Pincová and Pinc, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46-144 36541 Bucheň, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

    H46-145 41486 Bořánková, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

    - 1 case against Estonia

    H46-146 45771 Veeber Tiit (No. 2), judgment of 21/01/03, final on 21/04/03

    - 49 cases against France

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46-149 67263 Mouisel, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-150 48221 Berger, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-151 49636 Chevrol, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

    H46-152 44565 Theraube, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 21/05/0316

    H46-153 36378 Bertuzzi, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46-154 43716 Susini and others, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-155 54596 Epoux Goletto, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

    H46-156 46802 Mac Gee, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

    H46-157 31520+ Richen and Gaucher, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

    H46-158 50528 Coste Thierry, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

    H46-159 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgments of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and of 27/05/03,

    final on 27/08/0317

    H46-160 42405 C.D., judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46-161 43627 Molles, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

    H46-162 43722 Wiot, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

    H46-163 49613 Garon, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-164 43191 Laidin, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46-166 42279 Diard, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of proceedings before the administrative courts18

    H46-167 58600 Benhaim, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

    H46-169 46215 Faivre, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-170 50368 Heidecker-Carpentier, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

    H46-171 43969 Kroliczek, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 21/05/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46-165 39282 Laidin Monique No. 2, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

    H46-172 44964 Louerat, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

    H46-173 60545 Perhirin, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46-174 51066 Raitiere, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

    H46-175 43719 Scotti, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46-176 48954 Traore, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

    H46-177 52116 Vieziez, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 21/05/03, rectified on 08/07/03

    - Default interest to be paid

    H32-178 25971 Proma di Franco Gianotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)566

    H46-179 37971 Sociétés Colas Est, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

    H46-180 35683 Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01

    H46-181 53613 Goth, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

    H46-182 44069 G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

    H46-183 29731 Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

    H32-184 31677 Watson John, Interim Resolution DH(2000)20

    H46-185 37794 Pannullo and Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-186 33023 Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-187 48167 Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-188 47631 Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-189 44070 Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-190 41476 Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

    H46-191 39278 Langlois, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-192 41526 Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-193 44952+ Van der Kar and Lissaur Van West, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

    H46-194 40096 Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

    H46-195 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber19

    H46-198 39273 Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

    - Length of proceedings before the administrative courts20

    H46-196 56198 Société Industrielle d’Entretien et de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

    H46-197 51179 Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/02

    - 9 cases against Greece

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46-200 50824 Azas, judgment of 19/09/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-201 47541 Vasilopoulou, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02 and judgment of 26/09/02

    (Article 41), final on 21/05/03

    H46-202 52464 Papadopoulos Georgios, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46-203 52848 Papadopoulos Ioannis, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 21/05/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46-204 55753 Papazafiris, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

    H46-205 61351 Mentis, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-206 62530 Vitaliotou, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46-207 49282 Marinakos, judgment of 04/10/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-208 47020 Kolokitha, judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    - 330 cases against Italy

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46-210 40877 Cordova Agostino No. 1, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46-211 45649 Cordova Agostino No. 2, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    - Failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants 21

    H46-212 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-213 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-214 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-215 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-216 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-217 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

    H46-218 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-219 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-220 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-221 33696 L. and P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-222 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-223 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-224 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-225 62135 Attene, judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-226 53231 Bologna, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-227 48840 Carloni Tarli, judgment of 30/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-228 60660 Ferretti Maria Grazia, judgment of 06/03/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-229 42414 G.G. V, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-230 35969 Giannatiempo, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-231 64450 Gianni Francesco, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-232 55674 Matta, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-233 55673 Savarese, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-234 43616 Tamma, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-235 54612 Zito and Corsi, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46-236 40601 Guerrera and Fusco, judgment of 03/04/03, revised on 31/07/03, final on

    31/10/0322

    H46-237 52975 Gucci, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02, revised on 01/10/02,

    final on 01/01/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46-239 36534 Osu, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

    H46-240 34714 Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-241 28724 Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

    H46-242 25639 F.L., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    H46-243 26772 Labita, judgment of 06/04/00, final on 06/04/00

    H46-244 30882 Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01

    H46-245 15918 Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00

    H46-246 28168 Quadrelli, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 20/03/00

    H46-247 33354 Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H32-248 19734 F.S. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)209

    H46-249 41852 Vaccaro, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-250 31143 Indelicato, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 18/01/02

    H46-251 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

    H46-252 39221+ Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

    Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)15123

    - Failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants 24

    H46-253 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-254 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-255 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-256 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-257 35997 Candela, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-258 36734 Visca, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-259 46079 Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-260 31928 F. and F., judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-261 39451 Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-262 39690 Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-263 31260 Lamperi Balenci, judgment of 21/02/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-264 47895 Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46-265 44481 A.C. VII, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-266 46515 Adriani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-267 46964 Alpites S.P.A., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-268 47785 Angemi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-269 48412 Ar.M., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

    H46-270 46958 Ardemagni and Ripa, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32-271 39900 Artuso Paolo, Interim Resolution DH(99)569

    H32-272 39137 Avallone, Interim Resolution DH(99)475

    H46-273 44511 Bellagamba, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-274 40977 Beltramo, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-275 44431 Beluzzi and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-276 39883 Bertozzi, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/04/00

    H46-277 44442 Bevilacqua, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-278 36811 Bielectric S.R.L., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46-279 44437 Bocca, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H32-280 39121 Bolla, Interim Resolution DH(99)480

    H46-281 44457 Bonelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-282 44436 Buffalo s.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-283 46534 Burghesu, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-284 46980 C.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32-285 35292 Calandrella F., P. and 2 others, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

    H46-286 39881 Capodanno, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/04/00

    H46-287 45071 Capurro and Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-288 46526 Carboni, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-289 45859 Caruso Giuseppina, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-290 45861 Cavallaro, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-291 36620 Ceriello, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

    H46-292 46537 Cerulli and Zadra, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-293 45869 Chiappetta, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-294 46959 Circo and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-295 44504 Citterio and Angiolillo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-296 47779 Ciuffetti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-297 46532 Conte Gaspare and others, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-298 40979 Conte Riccardo II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-299 47774 Conti Giuliana, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-300 44385 Cornaglia, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-301 46527 Corsi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-302 35616 Coscia, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

    H46-303 46538 Costantini Francesco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-304 44500 Cova, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-305 45880 Cultraro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-306 46536 D.C. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-307 40954 D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-308 44513 D’Ammassa and Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, revised on 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-309 45872 D’Annibale, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H32-310 17482 D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

    H46-311 40216 D’Arrigo and Garrozzo, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

    H46-312 52921 Damiano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

    H32-313 40566 De Cicco Concetta, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

    H32-314 40580 De Lorenzi, Interim Resolution DH(99)588

    H46-315 49372 De Pilla, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-316 42520 De Simone Pasquale, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32-317 39138 Di Fant I, Interim Resolution DH(99)488

    H32-318 39139 Di Fant II, Interim Resolution DH(99)489

    H46-319 44446 Di Girolamo and 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-320 46976 Di Motoli and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-321 46520 Dorigo Franco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-322 44480 E.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-323 44519 E.M. II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

    H32-324 39906 Emmebiemme S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)592

    H46-325 40982 Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-326 46524+ F., T. and E., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-327 46533 F.L.S., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-328 39164 F.S.p.A. II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-329 46971 F.T., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32-330 26012 Facciolini, Interim Resolution DH(96)648

    H46-331 46968 Falconi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-332 52972 Falzarano Carmine, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46-333 47781 Farinosi and Barattelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-334 45870 Ferrazzo and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-335 45868 Filippello Giorgio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H32-336 38145 Focardi and Conti, Interim Resolution DH(99)287

    H46-337 46965 Franceschetti and Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32-338 38118 Fraschetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)288

    H46-339 44397 G.B. IV, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-340 37131 G.M.N., judgment of 02/11/99, final on 02/11/99

    H32-341 38503 G.P. and 25 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)388

    H46-342 46543 G.S. and L.M., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-343 47786 G.V. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-344 46963 Galiè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-345 46528 Giannalia, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-346 47773 Gianni, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-347 45860 Giuseppe Nicola and Luciano Caruso, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-348 40968 I.F., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-349 44418 I.P.E.A. S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-350 39116 I.R., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

    H46-351 44447 Ianniti and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-352 46516 Il Messaggero S.a.s. II, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-353 46517 Il Messaggero S.a.s. III, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-354 46518 Il Messaggero S.a.s. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-355 46519 Il Messaggero S.a.s. V, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-356 44501 Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-357 47777 Ilardi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-358 44508 Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-359 46530 Iulio, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-360 40924 L. S.r.l., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

    H46-361 46542 Lanino, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H32-362 31341 Lazzari and Scagnoli, Interim Resolution DH(97)637

    H46-363 45853 Lo Cicero, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H32-364 40571 Lo Sardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)606

    H46-365 46523 Lonardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-366 46962 Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-367 44406 M. S.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-368 46961 Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-369 40978 Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32-370 28725 Manzi A., B. and L., Interim Resolution DH(97)254

    H46-371 40956 Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-372 44443 Marchi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-373 46957 Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-374 44517 Mari and Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-375 44422 Marzinotto, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-376 46966 Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-377 46979 Mastrantonio Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-378 44420 Mauri, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-379 46973 Morelli and Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-380 44490 Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32-381 39872 Nata, Interim Resolution DH(99)617

    H46-382 46522 Nolla, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-383 44494 O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-384 44468 P.B. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-385 40570 Padalino V. and G., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

    H46-386 40952 Paderni II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 3.a

    H32-387 21707 Panissa, D., G. and A. Vittonetto

    H32-388 39155 Perilli and Gigotti Micheli, Interim Resolution DH(99)509

    H46-389 45070 Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-390 44380 Pettirossi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-391 28936 Piccinini II, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32-392 39899 Pirilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)623

    H46-393 45065 Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-394 46967 Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-395 46969 Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-396 44412 Quattrone Pasquale, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-397 45058 Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-398 44465 Rigutto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-399 44409 Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 04/07/02

    H46-400 43098 Romano, judgment of 28/09/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32-401 35328 Roselli Italo II, Interim Resolution DH(98)440

    H46-402 44479 Rosetti e Ciucci and C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-403 44527 Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-404 44472 Rossi Valeria, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-405 44461 Sacchi Roberto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-406 38135 Sanna, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

    H46-407 44466 Santoro Valerio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-408 47780 Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-409 45854 Savino, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

    H46-410 44419 Sbrojavacca Pietrobon, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-411 36621 Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

    H46-412 44491 Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-413 44470 Spada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-414 56094 Sposito, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

    H46-415 39705 Spurio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H32-416 39865 Staffolani, Interim Resolution DH(99)635

    H46-417 44417 Tagliabue, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H32-418 38102 Talenti, Interim Resolution DH(2001)58

    H46-419 44486 Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-420 44425 Tedesco Michele, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-421 46539 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. VII, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-422 45068 Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-423 44488 Vecchi and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-424 44528 Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-425 44534 Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32-426 40586 Verini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)639

    H46-427 40599 Vicari II, judgment of 15/02/00

    H46-428 44395 Visentin, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-429 37166 Vitale and others, judgment of 02/11/99

    H46-430 44445 W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-431 44462 Zanasi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-432 37079 Zironi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    - Length of the proceedings before administrative courts25

    H46-433 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46-434 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

    H46-435 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46-436 41807 Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-437 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46-438 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46-439 41813 Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-440 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46-441 41812 Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-442 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

    H46-443 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

    - Length of the proceedings before the Court of Audit

    H46-444 41823 Pascali and Conte, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32-445 39175 Sileo, Interim Resolution DH(99)524

    - Length of the proceedings before the labour courts

    H46-446 40363 Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-447 43063 Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-448 40975 Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-449 43094 C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-450 42999 Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32-451 36615 Cappello, Interim Resolution DH(99)212

    H32-452 38095 Cardillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)317

    H46-453 43020 Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-454 46521 Ciccardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-455 42996 Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-456 44532 Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46-457 43088 Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-458 43086 Cosimo Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-459 43087 Cosimo Rotondi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-460 43083 D’Addona Simone, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

    H46-461 43017 D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-462 43059 D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-463 40960 Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-464 43054 Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-465 43051 Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-466 43062 Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-467 46975 Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-468 43030 Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-469 43022 Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-470 46978 F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-471 45855 Fr.C., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-472 43056 Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-473 51156 Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, rectified on 12/09/02

    H46-474 43058 Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-475 43096 G.A. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-476 43093 G.P. VI, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-477 43075 Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-478 37170 Giampietro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-479 38975 Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-480 43050 Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-481 43074 Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-482 39124 Guagenti, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

    H46-483 43072 Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-484 43091 Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-485 42998 Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-486 43101 Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-487 43021 Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-488 43067 Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46-489 43065 Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-490 43102 Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-491 43068 Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-492 43095 M.C. X, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-493 43010 Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32-494 37160 Marsicovetere, Interim Resolution DH(99)221

    H46-495 43000 Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-496 43018 Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-497 43069 Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-498 43057 Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-499 43064 Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-500 43100 Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-501 43076 P.T. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-502 43012 Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-503 43052 Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-504 43061 Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-505 43060 Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-506 43023 Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-507 46974 Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-508 43019 Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-509 43055 Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-510 43099 Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-511 43085 Silvio Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-512 42997 Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-513 43084 Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-514 46960 Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-515 43016 Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-516 43070 Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-517 43109 Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-518 43015 Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-519 43066 Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46-520 38878 Ciacci, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-521 42351 Del Giudice, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

    H46-522 45267 F.R. and 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46-523 41603 G.B.Z., L.Z. and S.Z., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 15/02/00

    H46-524 41094 Giannangeli, judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01

    H46-525 32646 Guerresi, judgment of 24/04/01, final on 24/04/01

    H46-526 41893 Martinez, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46-527 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00

    H46-528 44943 Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-529 29898 Patanè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46-530 30132 Pepe Umberto, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

    H32-531 36733 Perilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)427

    H32-532 24170 Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

    H46-533 37118 Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32-534 26806 U.O. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)52

    H32-535 26781 U.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)129

    H32-536 26782 U.O. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)130

    H46-537 43199 Visintin, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    - Length of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

    H46-538 45856 Bacigalupi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46-539 45857 Comella and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-540 45858 Tesconi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    Sub-section 3.a

    - 1 case against Latvia

    H46-541 58442 Lavents, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

    - 1 case against Luxembourg

    H46-542 51773 Schaal, judgment of 18/02/03, final on 18/05/0326

    - 5 cases against the Netherlands

    H46-543 35731 Venema, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/0327

    H46-544 34462 Wessels-Bergervoet, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02 and judgment of 12/11/02 (Article 41) – Friendly settlement

    H46-545 52750 Lorsé and others, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

    H46-546 50901 Van der Ven, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

    H46-547 51392 Göçer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03

    - 7 cases against Poland

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46-550 30218 Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03

    H46-551 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/0328

    H46-552 34049 Zwierzynski, judgments of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 and of 02/07/02, final on 24/06/0329

    H46-553 33870 Fuchs, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

    H46-554 38665 Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03, rectified on 10/07/0330

    H46-555 37437 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/0331

    - Default interest to be paid

    H32-556 27506 Owczarzak, Interim Resolution DH(99)260

    Sub-section 3.a

    - 6 cases against Portugal

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46-558 52657 Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

    H46-560 51806 Figueiredo Simões, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46-563 52412 Marques Nunes, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46-564 44298 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

    H46-565 48752 Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-566 49020 F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

    - 17 cases against Romania

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46-567 33627 Bărăgan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/0332

    H46-568 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/0333

    H46-569 29769 Curutiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/0334

    H46-570 32936 Drăgnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/0335

    H46-571 32977 Găvruş, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/0336

    H46-572 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/0337

    H46-573 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/0338

    H46-574 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/0339

    H46-575 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/0340

    H46-576 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/0341

    H46-577 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/0342

    H46-578 33355 Popescu Nata, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/0343

    H46-579 33631 Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/0344

    H46-580 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/0345

    H46-581 32269 Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/0346

    H46-582 33176 Moşteanu and others, judgment of 26/11/02, rectified on 04/02/03, final on 26/02/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46-583 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01

    (rectification) – Grand Chamber47

    - 8 cases against the Slovak Republic

    H46-585 47227 Baková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-586 41784 A.B., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    H46-587 44965 Molnárová and Kochanová, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    H46-588 54822 Micovčin, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-589 56452 Nezbeda, judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-590 63999 Rusnáková, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-591 62191 Sisák, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-592 57985 Slovák II, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Spain

    H46-593 58496 Prado Bugallo, judgment of 18/02/03, final on 18/05/03

    - 2 cases against Sweden

    H46-594 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-595 36985 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03

    - 13 cases against Turkey

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46-607 27214 C.S.Y., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/0348

    H46-596 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/0349

    H46-597 25141 Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP), judgment of 10/12/02, final on 21/05/0350

    H46-598 40153+ Çetin and others, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

    H46-599 26546 Acar Ahmet, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    - Independence and impartiality of the State security courts

    H46-600 39324 Demirel, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

    H46-601 43818 N.K., judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03, rectified on 18/02/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    - Friendly settlements concerning actions of the security forces and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government 51

    H46-602 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-603 31845 Dilek Kemal, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-604 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-606 28504 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46-609 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/0252

    H46-610 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/9953

    - 6 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46-611 53236 Waite, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

    H46-612 49771 Jordan Stephen No. 2, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

    H46-614 44652 Beckles, judgment of 08/10/02, final on 08/01/03

    H46-615 48539 Allan, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46-617 44647 Peck, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

    H46-618 44808 Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/0354

    3.b SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST

    SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT

    EXPIRED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

        Some of the cases appearing under this section concern late payment for reasons beyond the control of the governments concerned.

    Expiry date

    of the time-limit set

    - 14 cases against France

    H46-619 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 19/12/2001

    H46-620 39626 Granata, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02 19/09/2002

    H46-621 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02 21/09/2002

    H46-622 38748 Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/0255 21/09/2002

    H46-623 32911+ Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/02 - Grand Chamber 26/10/2002

    H46-624 38396 Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02 16/11/2002

    H46-625 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02 25/12/2002

    H46-626 41376 D.M., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02 27/12/2002

    H46-627 33395 L.R., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02 27/12/2002

    H46-159 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgments of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and of

    27/05/03, final on 27/08/03 56 02/01/2003

    H46-628 33424 Nouhaud and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-629 45172 Fentati, judgment of 22/10/02 - Friendly settlement 22/01/2003

    H46-630 54210 Papon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02 25/01/2003

    H46-168 41358 Desmots, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 06/11/02 06/02/2003

    - 148 cases against Italy

    H46-631 33202 Beyeler, judgments of 05/01/00 (merits) and of 28/05/02 (Article 41) 28/08/2002

    H46-632 36732 Pisano, judgment of 24/10/02 – Striking-out - Grand Chamber 24/01/2003

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46-633 44421 Galasso, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46-634 51708 I.M., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

    H46-635 51668 Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

    H46-636 51672 Selva, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

    H46-637 41803 Pupillo, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00; revised judgment

    on just satisfaction of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02 18/06/2002

    H46-638 56101 Mesiti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

    H46-639 56093 Società Croce Gialla Romana S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02,

    final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

    H46-640 51664 Rodolfi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-641 41740 Diebold, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46-642 44413 Guerrera Angelo Giuseppe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-643 47479 Mastromauro S.R.L., judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H32-644 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)67357 22/10/2002

    H46-645 56084 At.M., judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02 07/11/2002

    Sub-section 3.b

    - Length of proceedings before administrative courts 58

    H46-646 44330 Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement 19/03/2001

    H46-647 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

    H46-648 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

    H46-649 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

    H46-650 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

    H46-651 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46-652 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46-653 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46-654 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46-655 44345 Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46-656 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02 06/06/2002

    H46-657 44333 V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

    H46-658 56226 Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-659 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-660 56206 Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-661 56208 Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-662 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-663 56224 D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-664 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-665 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-666 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-667 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-668 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-669 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-670 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-671 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-672 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-673 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-674 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-675 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-676 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-677 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-678 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-679 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-680 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46-681 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46-682 44341 Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-683 44347 Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-684 44350 Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-685 44337 Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-686 44340 Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-687 44349 Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-688 44348 Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-689 44351 Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    - Length of proceedings before labour courts

    H46-690 43097 Nicoli, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement 22/09/2000

    H46-691 51031 Aceto and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-692 51089 Armellino Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-693 52824 Belviso and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-694 52804 Bianco Pellegrino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    Sub-section 3.b

    H46-695 52816 Biondi and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-696 51030 Biondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-697 52835 Cerbo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-698 52801 Ciarmoli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-699 52815 Cimmino and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-700 52807 Ciullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-701 52821 Colangelo Domenico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-702 51164 Crovella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-703 51163 D’Angelo Michele, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-704 51125 De Filippo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-705 51027 Del Vecchio Anna Rita, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-706 51155 Della Ratta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-707 52813 Di Meo and Masotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-708 52846 Di Meo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-709 51092 Di Mezza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-710 51091 Ferrara Clementina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-711 52843 Franco and Basile, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-712 52924 Frattini and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02,

    judgment revised of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/0359 12/08/2002

    H46-713 51161 Gagliardi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-714 52830 Giannotta and Iannella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-715 51094 Iacobucci and Lavorgna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-716 51170 Izzo Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-717 52802 Lagozzino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-718 52812 Lavorgna and Iorio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-719 52822 Macolino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-720 52819 Mancino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-721 51169 Marotta Alberto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-722 51168 Martino Alfonso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-723 52827 Mastrocinque Mafalda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-724 51167 Matera Tommasina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-725 52845 Mazzarelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-726 52818 Meola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-727 52840 Mongillo Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-728 44428 Nardone Antonio, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/08/2002

    H46-729 52832 Nero and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-730 51029 Ocone, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-731 51114 Paduano, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-732 52829 Pallotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-733 51022 Palmieri Mario Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-734 52841 Panza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-735 52837 Pascale and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-736 52842 Pascale Elda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-737 52826 Pascale Maria Annunziata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-738 51162 Pengue, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-739 52808 Perna Giuseppina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-740 52828 Petrillo and Petrucci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-741 51025 Petrillo Gino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-742 51024 Porto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-743 52825 Pucella and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    Sub-section 3.b

    H46-744 51126 Raccio Emilia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-745 51109 Restuccio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-746 52820 Riccardi Vicenzina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-747 52823 Romano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-748 52844 Romano Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-749 52833 Santagata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-750 51165 Santina Pelosi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-751 40151 Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/08/2002

    H46-752 52839 Tanzillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-753 52836 Tazza and Zullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-754 52810 Tazza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-755 52809 Truocchio Edmondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-756 51166 Truocchio Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-757 51124 Tudisco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-758 52817 Urbano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-759 51026 Uzzo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-760 52811 Villari, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-761 52847 Viscuso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-762 51028 Vitelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-763 52814 Zoccolillo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-764 52800 Zuotto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46-765 51023 Palmieri Maddalena, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02,

    judgment revised on 18/04/02, final on 18/07/02 18/10/2002

    - Length of the proceedings before the Court of Audit

    H46-766 54307 Meleddu, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement 21/05/2002

    H46-767 54316 Betti, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46-768 54293 Chiappetta Domenico, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46-769 54287 Ferrari Sergio, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46-770 54299 Libertini and Di Girolamo, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46-771 44359 Marrama, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46-772 54286 Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement 07/08/2002

    H46-773 54282 Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46-774 54278 Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46-775 54312 Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46-776 54319 Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46-777 41424 Nuvoli, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02 16/11/2002

    - Length of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

    H46-778 46970 Contardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    Sub-section 3.b

    - 8 cases against Romania60

    H46-781 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

    rectified on 09/07/02 09/10/2002

    H46-782 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

    final on 21/08/02 21/11/2002

    H46-783 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02 04/12/2002

    H46-784 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-785 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46-787 32943 Falcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2002

    H46-788 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

    H46-789 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

    - 11 cases against Turkey

    H46-832 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/0261 14/08/2002

    H54-790 15318 Loizidou, judgments of 18/12/96 (merits) and 28/07/98 (just satisfaction) -

    Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105 and ResDH(2001)8062 28/10/1998

    H46-791 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/0063 15/09/2000

    H46-792 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/0164 10/04/2001

    H46-793 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/0165 04/07/2001

    H46-794 34688 Akin, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/2001

    - Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

    H46-795 19279 Göçmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

    H46-796 19285 Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

    H46-797 19303 Şen Celal and Keziban, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01 10/10/2001

    H46-798 27694 A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46-799 37087 Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement,

    rectified on 19/09/02 and 03/04/03 27/09/2002

    - 2 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46-801 42007 Davies, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02, rectified on 13/09/02 13/12/2002

    H46-802 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber66 11/10/2002

    - 1 case against « the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »

    H46-803 58185 Janeva, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement 03/02/2003

    3.c EXAMINATION OF SPECIAL PAYMENT PROBLEMS (FOR EXAMPLE THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE APPLICANT, DISPUTES REGARDING THE EXACT AMOUNT PAID AS A RESULT OF EXCHANGE RATE PROBLEMS OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES)

    - 27 cases against Turkey

    H46-804 30947 Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-805 26093+ B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

    H46-806 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/0167

    H46-807 25182+ Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

    H46-808 25724 Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-809 31963 Özel and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-810 27697+ Yaşar and others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

    H46-811 19310 Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

    H46-812 19308 Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

    In these cases the applicants and/or the Secretariat have identified various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems concern mostly more or less substantial shortfalls in payment, due among other things to currency conversion and/or delays in payment (default interest).

    The Turkish authorities have undertaken to examine these problems with a view to settling the outstanding amounts due in accordance with the Court’s judgments. Information is awaited on the progress made to that effect.

    - Action of the Turkish security forces 68

    H54-813 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H54-814 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H54-815 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and

    ResDH(2002)98

    H54-816 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H46-817 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-818 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-819 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-820 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H32-821 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and

    ResDH(2002)98

    H46-822 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-823 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-824 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-825 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-826 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-827 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    - Cases concerning freedom of expression 69

    H46-829 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00

    H46-830 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00

    H46-831 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    In these cases, the applicants, their representatives and the Secretariat have raised various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems concern mostly more or less substantial shortfalls in payment.

    Sub-section 3.c

    During the examination of these cases in the Committee of Ministers, some concerns have been expressed about the comprehensive and persistent shortfalls in payment of just satisfaction and Turkey has been invited to remedy this problem urgently.

    Following a bilateral meeting held in Strasbourg on 18/02/2002 between the Secretariat and a Delegation from Ankara, the Turkish authorities’ presented in April 2002 their own calculations in each of the outstanding cases. In many cases the shortfalls acknowledged by the authorities coincide with the figures submitted by the applicants (including the default interest and restitution of a stamp duty erroneously deducted from the payments). However, in some of the cases the calculations differ notably as the payment was not effectuated as prescribed by the Court as regards the place and/or the currency of payment.

    On 07/06/2002, the applicants’ representatives responded to the Government’s calculations by maintaining et further substantiating the sums claimed.

    Between November 2002 and May 2003 the Secretariat, having examined the parties’ communications, has sent letters to the Turkish authorities concerning 20 cases giving the necessary details to facilitate payment in conformity with the judgments.

    On 10/05/2003, the applicants’ representatives informed the Secretariat about the full payment of the shortfall in 9 cases. The confirmation of payment is still awaited in 11 other cases, in which the shortfall is clearly established.

    Finally, the 5 cases in bold are still outstanding because the Secretariat does not possess sufficient information to establish exactly the sums that remain due. These cases will be addressed in future contacts between the parties and the Secretariat.

    Table summarising the total number of cases by States

State

No confirmation of payment of the capital sum

(3.a capital sums)

Payment after expiration of the time-limit set and no confirmation of payment of the default interest due

(3.a default interest)

No confirmation of payment of the capital sum although payment due since more than 6 months

(3.b)

Special payment problems

(3.c)

Austria

2

     

Belgium

9

1

   

Bulgaria

2

     

Tzech Republic

5

     

Spain

1

     

Estonia

1

     

Finland

2

     

France

28

21

14

 

Greece

7

2

   

Italy

28

302

149

 

Latvia

1

     

Macedonia

   

1

 

Netherlands

4

     

Norway

2

     

Poland

6

1

   

Portugal

7

3

2

 

Romania

16

1

9

 

Russie

1

     

Slovakia

8

     

Sweden

2

     

Turkey

11

2

11

27

United Kingdom

8

 

2

 

    Strasbourg, 08/10/2003

    List of cases for which late information on payment of just satisfaction has been provided

    up to 8 October 2003

    (854th meeting, 7, 8 and 9 October 2003)

    The information presented in the table below is the sole responsibility of the states concerned. Bearing in mind the date upon which this information was communicated to it, the Secretariat has not yet had the opportunity to check it. This will be done for the next meeting.

    Liste d’affaires pour lesquelles des informations tardives sur le paiement de la satisfaction équitable ont été fournies jusqu’au 8 octobre 2003

    (854e réunion, 7, 8 et 9 octobre 2003)

    Les informations présentées dans le tableau ci-dessous relèvent de la seule responsabilité des Etats concernés. Compte tenu de la date de la transmission de ces informations, le Secrétariat n’a pas encore eu l’occasion de les vérifier. Cette vérification sera effectuée pour la prochaine réunion.

Item / Point

State /

Etat

Application /

Requête

Case/

Affaire

Section / Rubrique

Judgment of /

Arrêt du

Final on / Définitif le

H46-37

D

30943

Sahin

2

08/07/03

08/07/03

H46-38

D

31871

Sommerfeld

2

08/07/03

08/07/03

H46-39

D

52853

Yilmaz Saldiray

2

17/04/03

17/07/03

H46-50

H

42961

Simkó

2

08/04/03

08/07/03

H46-51

H

36186

Tímár

2

25/02/03

09/07/03

H46-96

P

53997

Dias da Silva and/et Ribeiro Martins

2

27/03/03

27/06/03

H46-548

NW

29327

O.

3.a

11/02/03

11/05/03

H46-549

NW

56568

Y.

3.a

11/02/03

11/05/03

H46-562

P

49279

Koncept-Conselho em Comunicação e Sensibilização de Públicos, Lda

3.a

31/10/02

31/01/03

H46-559

P

53937

Ferreira Alves, Limited

3.a

27/02/03

27/05/03

H46-561

P

48956

Gil Leal Pereira

3a

31/10/02

31/01/03

H46-557

P

38830

Czekalla

3a

10/10/02

10/01/03

H46-584

RUS

63486

Posokhov

3.a

04/03/03

04/06/03

H46-616

UK

50272

Hutchison Reid

3.a

20/02/03

20/05/03

H46-613

UK

65334

Atkinson

3.a

08/04/03

08/04/03

H46-780

P

48187

Rosa Marques and others / et autres

3.b

25/07/02

25/10/02

H46-779

P

48233

Almeida Do Couto

3.b

30/05/02

30/05/02

H46-209

I

57574+

Sulejmanovic and others / et autres/ & Sejdovic & Sulejmanovic

3.b / 4.1

08/11/02

08/11/02

H46-786

ROU

32925

Cretu

3.b / 4.2

09/07/02

09/10/02

H46-147

FIN

27824

Posti et Rahko

3.a

24/09/02

21/05/03

H46-148

FIN

42059

Eerola

3.a

06/05/03

 

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

    (See Addendum 4 for part or all these cases)

    Action

    The Deputies are invited to supervise the progress made in the adoption of the implementing measures in the following cases raising several problems. Supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will be issued in Addendum 4. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these items on a case-by-case basis.

    SUB-SECTION 4.1 – SUPERVISION OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES ONLY70

    - 1 case against Austria

    H46-833 37295 Yildiz M., G. and Y., judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

    The case concerns a breach of the right to respect for family life of the applicants, Turkish nationals (a married couple and their young child, all living at the time in Austria), due to the expulsion of the first applicant (the father) in June 1997, under Section 18 of the 1992 Aliens Act following several minor criminal offences committed in Austria (shoplifting, driving offences). The European Court concluded that although provided in law and pursuing a legitimate aim, the interference in the applicants’ right to respect for their family life was not proportionate and therefore not necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8).

    Individual measures: Since March 2001, the first two applicants have divorced. Although the mother, who is living in Austria, has obtained custody of her daughter, the father has visiting rights. The exclusion order from Austrian territory imposed on the first applicant expired in September 1999, but he states that he is being prevented from returning to Austria (§27 of the judgment). By letter of 18/06/2003, the Austrian authorities confirmed the information already provided to the Deputies at the 834th meeting (April 2003) namely that they were ready to grant the applicant a residence permit if he filed an application in this respect.

    General measures: The Austrian Representation has confirmed the publication of the judgment of the European Court in the Österreichische Juristenzeitung and has indicated that a broad dissemination of the judgment to the authorities and courts which are competent to decide the expulsion of foreigners would be carried out without delay.

    The case will be joined to the case of Jakupovic against Austria (judgment of 06/02/03) at the 863rd meeting (December 2003) for supervision of the other general measures concerning the 1992 Aliens Act.

    - 2 cases against Cyprus

    H46-834 30873 Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

    CM/Inf(2003)30

    The case mainly concerns the inhuman treatment inflicted upon the applicant by state officials during his arrest before being admitted to hospital in Larnaca (violation of Article 3) and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). On 01/12/1995, the Attorney General filed at the Nicosia District Court a nolle prosequi in the applicant’s case, in accordance with Article 113.2 of the Constitution. The applicant was released on the same day. On 04/12/1995, the Nicosia District Court discharged the applicant.

    Individual measures: The applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Secretariat on 19/04/2001 raising several questions about the need to adopt individual measures in this case. In May 2001 the Secretariat forwarded a copy of the letter to the Cypriot authorities, who confirmed that they were examining measures that might need to be taken in this case and undertook to keep the Secretariat informed of developments.

    On 26/09/2002, the Secretariat received a letter from the applicant’s lawyer requesting among other things precise information about the measures under examination by the Cypriot authorities. He also asked whether the Attorney General had instituted criminal proceedings against the officers involved and, if not, what reasons had been given. Finally, he requested that a copy of his letter be made available to all the Deputies.

    At the 827th meeting (11-12/02/2003), the Cypriot authorities informed the Committee that the Attorney-General intended to appoint independent criminal investigators to look into the question of criminal offences committed by members of the police (the statement was distributed at the meeting).

    Sub-section 4.1

    At the 847th meeting (July 2003) the Cypriot authorities indicated that information in respect of this latter issue would be available for the 854th DH meeting (October 2003). At the time of issuing the present notes, the information had not yet reached the Secretariat.

    General measures: As in the Denizci and others case, also examined under section 4.1, the Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judicial and also police/security forces, Attorney General’s Office, Ombudsman, Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all state officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Finally, the judgment has received extensive media coverage in Cyprus. Information about its publication has been requested.

    Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged. The Cypriot authorities have sent the Secretariat details in Greek. An English summary was also sent to the Secretariat on 04/10/2002.

    The Committee has asked whether, as far as the violation of Article 13 is concerned and in the light of §§71 and 99 of the Court’s judgment, the Cypriot authorities envisage adopting specific measures to guarantee that similar violations do not recur.

    On 31/10/2002, the Cypriot Delegation met the Secretariat, which highlighted the issues in need of clarification and requested to have this, if possible, in time for the examination of the Egmez and Denizci cases at the 819th meeting.

    On 07/02/2003, there was a further meeting between the Cypriot Delegation and the Secretariat. Written information was handed to the Secretariat. This information was subsequently presented to the Committee by the Cypriot Representative at the 827th meeting and a copy of the statement was distributed to all delegations.

    Subsequently, on 26/02/2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Cypriot authorities, indicating those areas in which further information/clarifications are awaited.

    At the 834th meeting (April 2003) the Cypriot authorities indicated that additional information in response to the Secretariat’s letter of 26/02/2003, would be transmitted to the Secretariat shortly. The Committee decided to postpone the examination of the case to its 847th meeting (July 2003).

    On 20/05/2003, the Secretariat received this information.

    All the information received so far from the Cypriot authorities, and the questions raised by the applicants’ representatives and other delegations are included in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat (see CM/Inf(2003)30).

    The Committee decided at its 847th meeting (July 2003) to postpone the examination of the general measures to its 863rd DH meeting (December 2003).

    H46-835 25316 Denizci and others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01

    CM/Inf(2003)30

    The case concerns in particular the fact that the applicants (and in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were subjected to ill-treatment considered inhuman by the European Court (violation of Article 3), that they have been victims of unlawful arrest and detention (violation of Article 5§1) and that they have been subjected to restrictions on their freedom of movement (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

    Individual measures: The Cypriot authorities have stated that the applicants were released from detention. The Committee has asked whether the investigation proceedings, which started in 1995, are still open (§23 of the judgment of the European Court).

    At the 827th meeting (11-12/02/2003), the Cypriot authorities informed the Committee that it is the intention of the Attorney General to appoint independent criminal investigators to carry out an investigation into the commission of criminal offences by members of the police (the statement was distributed at the meeting).

    Sub-section 4.1

    At the 847th meeting (July 2003) the Cypriot authorities indicated that information in respect of this latter issue would be available for the 854th DH meeting (October 2003). At the time of issuing the present notes, the information had not yet reached the Secretariat.

    General measures: The Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (the Judiciary and also the police force/security forces, the Attorney General’s Office, the Ombudsman, the Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all State officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Finally, the judgment has received extensive media coverage in Cyprus. Exact references as to its publication and the dissemination have been requested. Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the code of criminal proceedings were already amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged. The Cypriot authorities have transmitted to the Secretariat, in written form, details of the above-mentioned information in Greek. An English summary was also sent to the Secretariat on 04/10/2002.

    On 31/10/2002, a meeting took place between the Cypriot Delegation and the Secretariat. At the meeting, the Secretariat identified the issues for which clarifications are needed, and requested to have this, if possible, in time for the examination of the Egmez and Denizci cases at the 819th meeting.

    The Committee decided at its 847th meeting (July 2003) to postpone the examination of the general measures to its 863rd DH meeting (December 2003).

    - 1 case against Germany

    H46-837 46544 Kutzner, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 10/07/02

    The case concerns in particular the fact that decisions of German courts withdrawing the applicants’ parental authority in respect of their two daughters constituted interference with their right to respect for their family life (violation of Article 8). On 12/02/1997, the guardianship tribunal decided provisionally to withdraw the applicants' rights to choose where the children lived and to make decisions concerning the need for medical treatment. At that time, the children were 6 and 4 years old. On 27/05/1997, the tribunal entirely withdrew the applicants' parental authority over their two children.

    Individual measures: the German Government informed the Committee that the local authority had convened a meeting on 08/08/2002 inviting the administration, the guardian, the parents, legal counsellors and human rights NGOs involved in this case. Furthermore, on 19/11/2002, the competent court appointed two psychological experts to examine whether and under what circumstances the children could be returned to their natural family without risk. The experts began work on 22/01/2003. On 11/03/2003 a meeting took place at the Bersenbrücke Court. At that meeting, the experts asked for increased contacts between the parents and their children, pending the outcome of the final study. Further information in this respect is awaited.

    General measures: the judgment of the European Court was published in the Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (Volume 2002, pp. 244-251) and transmitted to all authorities concerned.

    - 1 case against Greece

    H46-838 50776+ Agga No. 2, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

    This case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of religion as a result of his repeated criminal convictions (in 1994-1998) and sentencing to several months' imprisonment for having usurped the functions and worn the vestments of the mufti of Xanthi (violation of Article 9). The European Court considered that these convictions were not necessary in a democratic society as they were not justified by any pressing social need.

    Sub-section 4.1

    Individual measures: At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Greek delegation indicated that, as in the Serif case (judgment of 14/12/1999, which appears in section 6.2), the applicant has the right, under Article 525§1(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to request the reopening of the domestic proceedings in order to have his conviction annulled and struck out from his criminal records. Further information as to whether the applicant has proceeded to such a request would be useful.

    General measures: The Serif judgment has been granted a direct effect in the Greek law. As a result, the criminal court of Lamia acquitted the applicant in March 2001 of similar charges brought against him in three other sets of criminal proceedings (see §32 of the Agga judgment).

    - 3 cases against Italy

    H32-839 33286 Dorigo Paolo, Interim Resolutions DH(99)258 and ResDH(2002)30

    Addendum 4

    The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings as a result of which the applicant was condemned to more than thirteen years’ imprisonment for, among other things, involvement in a terrorist bomb attack on a NATO military base in 1993. His conviction was based exclusively on statements made before the trial by three “repented” co-accused, the applicant not having been allowed to examine these statements or to have them examined (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3d).

    Individual measures: Given the circumstances of this case, the question of the reopening of the domestic proceedings was raised. Draft legislation aimed at introducing this possibility in Italian law has been before the Parliament at least since 1998 and a new draft bill (No. 1447/C) was introduced in July 2001. This new text, however, like the previous ones, would allow for such a re-examination only in case of violation of Article 6§3 of the Convention and would not apply to cases decided, like this one, by the Committee of Ministers (cf. Recommendation No. R(2000)2). On 22/03/2001 the Director General of human rights addressed a letter to the Italian authorities drawing attention to the shortcomings in the proposed text. Details of the time-frame envisaged for the adoption of this draft law have also been requested. At the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Deputies adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)30, encouraging the Italian authorities to ensure the rapid adoption of new legislation in conformity with the principles in the Recommendation No. R(2000)2 and decided to resume consideration of the matter once new legislation had been adopted or, at the latest, in October 2002. On this last occasion, the Italian Delegation stated that the draft law was still under discussion and expressed the opinion that although the draft text only referred to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, it might once adopted also be applied by analogy to this case. According to the information available at the time of preparing these Notes, the above-mentioned draft law was in fact amended and approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 28/07/2003 and is now pending before the Senate for final adoption. The amended text provides for the possibility to review criminal proceedings in case a violation of Article 6 of the Convention has been found by the Court or the Committee of Ministers. If the violation of the Convention was found before the entry into force of the law, the request for revision shall have to be introduced within 180 days after the entry into force of the law, with the exception of cases concerning mafia and terrorism crimes, for which no revision will be allowed. Therefore, if this draft law was adopted as it stands, it would not be applicable to the case of Dorigo. The applicant’s lawyer raised this issue in a letter to the Secretariat of 15/09/2003 and requested that the applicant be immediately released, pending the outcome of a new trial (see addendum 4).

    General measures: Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as modified in November 1999, gives Constitutional rank to a number of requirements contained in Article 6 of the Convention. This new constitutional provision has been implemented by Law No. 63 of 01/03/2001, which amends inter alia Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the law now in force, pre-trial statements made without respecting the adversarial principle by co-accused persons cannot be used in proceedings against a person without his consent (unless the judge establishes that the co-accused person’s refusal to be cross-questioned in the proceedings is the result of bribery or threats). This rule applies not only to statements made in the context of the same proceedings but also to those made in other proceedings. As regards pending proceedings, Law No. 35 of 25/02/2000 provides that statements that have not been questioned by the accused person can only be used against him/her in the debate as long as they are corroborated by other evidence.

    Sub-section 4.1

    H46-840 41879 Saggio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    The case concerns in particular the fact that no effective remedy was available to the applicant in order to claim the payment of back pay from a company placed under compulsory administration or to contest the action of the liquidator because, at that time, judicial action was only possible after the list of debts had been established (violation of Article 13).

    The new provisions, which entered into force in August 1999 (Law-Decree No. 270/99), now allow any creditor to contest the actions of a liquidator before the domestic courts. In the case at issue, however, the applicant cannot recover his sums as long as the compulsory administration proceedings, pending since 1995, are not finished.

    Individual measures: the Italian authorities have been invited to take all appropriate measures in order to accelerate the pending domestic proceedings.

    General measures: the publication of the judgment of the European Court has been requested.

    H46-209 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns the applicants’ expulsion to Bosnia-Herzegovina in March 2000 (complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention).

    According to the friendly settlement reached, the Italian Home Affairs Ministry has undertaken, in addition to the payment of certain sums to the applicants and to their lawyer:

    1) to revoke the deportation orders in respect of the applicants;

    2) to permit them to enter Italy with their families;

    3) to issue them with residence permits on humanitarian grounds, valid for one year and renewable, allowing them to work and study in Italy;

    4) to provide them with temporary accommodation, in association with the Rome local authorities, pending the finding of long-term accommodation in an equipped camp and to keep them informed of any development thereon;

    5) to arrange with the competent authorities for the children of school age to attend school and be helped to make up for the school years lost after their expulsion to Bosnia;

    6) to arrange with the competent authorities for a sick child to receive the medical attention she needs in the framework of the public health system.

    Individual measures: The agreed sums were paid on 10/02/2003 to 5 applicants and on 17/03/2003 to 8 applicants and their lawyer. Payment to three other applicants is under way.

    As regards the other undertakings:

    - 1) The deportation orders were revoked on 18/10/2002 and the applicants’ names removed from the “Schengen” database.

    - 2) With the exception of Ms Vahida Sulejmanovic, who could not be found, all the applicants re-entered Italy, their travel being paid by the Italian authorities who also accepted to extend the time-frame agreed in the friendly settlement for their return.

    - 3) With the exception of the missing applicant, all the applicants have been granted residence permits in conformity with the terms of the friendly settlement.

    - 4) Upon their return to Italy, the applicants were placed for some time at the state’s expense in a temporary accommodation that they have now left. The family of Izet Sulejmanovic settled in an equipped site where their grandmother lived, while no long-term accommodation in an equipped site has been found so far for the other two families, in spite of the efforts made by the authorities with the assistance of an NGO, because of the lack of suitable equipped sites in Rome. By letter dated 29/05/2003, the applicants’ lawyer drew the attention to the urgency of solving this problem and recalled that the authorities had engaged to keep the applicants’ informed of any developments. At the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Italian authorities confirmed their commitment to continue their efforts. They subsequently proposed, in July 2003, to place at the applicant’s disposal, within a short term, two containers in an equipped site. On 11/07/2003, the applicants accepted this offer. As of 25/08/2003, however, the families at issue were homeless and were living in their cars, as the agreement had not been implemented yet.

    Sub-section 4.1

    - 5) and 6) In reply to a letter of 29/05/2003 from the applicants’ lawyer signalling that no step had been taken yet by the competent authorities as regards undertakings concerning the schooling and medical care of the children, the Italian Delegation recalled, at the 841st meeting (June 2003) that, on the basis of their residence permits, the applicants were entitled to benefit from the public school and health system and that specific action to be taken would be considered once they registered the children at schools and addressed the competent local health services. Subsequently, the Italian authorities indicated their intention to meet the applicants, at the end of June 2003, with a view to informing them about the concrete action required to benefit from educational and medical care services. Furthermore, they indicated that a voluntary association would be involved in the out-of-school support to the children. Information is expected on the follow-up given to these initiatives.

    - 1 case against Poland

    H46-843 43786 Szymikowska and Szymikowski, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

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

    Individual measures: Under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government indicated that it would supervise the progress of the impugned proceedings. By letter of 02/07/2003, the Polish authorities indicated that the proceedings are pending before the appellate court which decided to conduct a supplementary investigation. More information is awaited in this context.

    - 1 case against Turkey

    H46-844 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59

    The case concerns the violation of the right to a fair trial in proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court, which sentenced the four applicants, members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, to 15 years’ imprisonment in December 1994.

    The violations found are the following:

      - lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6§1 - see §40 of the judgment);

      - lack of timely information about the legal redefinition of the accusation brought against the applicants and lack of sufficient time and facilities to prepare the applicants’ defence (violation of Article 6§3 a and b taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§57-59 of the judgment);

      - impossibility to examine or to have examined the witnesses who testified against the applicants (violation of Article 6§3d taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§67-68 of the judgment).

    Having found these violations, the Court did not consider it necessary to decide separately the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10, 11 and 14.

    Individual measures:

    In view of the extent of the violations of the right to a fair trial and of their consequences for the applicants, the Turkish authorities were requested, at the 764th meeting (October 2001), to consider urgently specific individual measures to erase these consequences. (cf. Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation R(2000)2 and its Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 on the individual measures in cases concerning freedom of expression in Turkey).

    Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59: At the 794th meeting (30 April 2002), as no progress in the execution of the judgment was reported on this point, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution in which it

      - Strongly urges the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to respond to the Committee’s repeated demands that the said authorities urgently remedy the applicants’ situation and take the necessary measures in order to reopen the proceedings impugned by the Court in this case, or other ad hoc measures erasing the consequences for the applicants of the violations found;

    Sub-section 4.1

    On 03/08/2002 a new law came into force which introduced into the penal and civil codes the possibility of reopening proceedings but only in new cases (coming before the Court after 03/08/2002). This new law has been strongly criticized within the Committee of Ministers since it was inapplicable to the four applicants. A new urgent action in their favour was consequently requested. In view of the absence of such an action, the Secretariat has been asked at the 810th meeting (October 2002) to prepare a new draft interim resolution. This has however not been adopted in view of the reopening of the impugned proceedings in Turkey (see below).

    Adoption of new legislation and retrial: On 04/02/2003 a new law entered into force allowing the reopening of domestic proceedings in all cases which have already been decided by the European Court and in all new cases which would henceforth be brought before the European Court. The provisions however exclude re-opening for all cases which were pending before the Court at the date of entry into force of the Law (4 February 2003).

    On the basis of this new law, the applicants' request for retrial was accepted by the State Security Court of Ankara on 28/02/2003 and seven public hearings of the case have already been held by the same court (on 28/03/2003, 25/04/2003, 23/05/2003, 20/06/2003, 18/07/2003, 15/08/2003 and 15/09/2003). The Committee of Ministers welcomed the reopening of the impugned domestic proceedings.

    However, the Committee has noted that successive requests to suspend the execution of the original prison sentence have been rejected by the State Security Court notwithstanding the fact that the applicants continue to suffer the consequences of the violations found, i.e. imprisonment on the basis of an unfair trial. This situation has given rise to calls for further measures to put an end to all negative effects for the applicants of the violations found. These requests have been reiterated at three consecutive meetings of the Committee of Ministers in April, June and July 2003. Moreover it has been suggested that the Prosecutor makes the proprio mutu request that the applicants are released in order to conform to the European Court’s judgment.

    The Turkish delegation has indicated that these concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities. It has also recalled that the question of suspension of the original sentence lies within the competence of the State Security Court. Yet, at the new hearing on 15/09/2003, the State Security Court again rejected the request for release made by the applicants.

    Follow-up by the Parliamentary Assembly: From the outset, the Parliamentary Assembly has been closely scrutinising the follow-up to the present judgment. At its 4th part session (23/09/2002) the Assembly held a debate and adopted Resolution 1297(2002) and Recommendation 1576(2002) on the implementation of the Court's judgments by Turkey. In these texts the Assembly, in particular, strongly supported demands to remedy the applicants' situation and urged the Committee of Ministers to use all means at its disposal to ensure compliance with the judgment without further delay.

    In its reply to Recommendation 1576(2002), the Committee "welcomes the fact that (…) the criminal proceedings in the aforementioned case are to be reopened before the State Security Court of Ankara. The Committee nevertheless notes that the suspension of the execution of the original prison sentence of the applicants pending the new trial was not approved when the request to re-open proceedings was accepted. The Committee trusts that a new, fair trial will proceed expeditiously so as effectively to erase the consequences of the violations found by the Court."

    On 30 April 2003, the Committee received a new written question (CM(2003)69) by Mr Erik Jurgens, a member of the Assembly, in which he "regret[s] notably that the execution of the original prison sentence imposed in the unfair proceedings had not been suspended" and "ask[s] if the Committee does not consider that to comply with the European Court's judgment Turkey must suspend the execution of [this] sentence (…) awaiting the new fair trial". A reply to this question was issued under the reference CM/AS(2003)Quest426 final and transmitted to the Parliamentary Assembly.

    General Measures: These measures were adopted notably concerning constitutional reform which has replaced the military judge in the State Security Courts by a civil judge (see the case Çiraklar v Turkey, judgment of 28/10/1998, Resolution DH(99)555). As regards the right to a fair trial, this right received constitutional protection as a result of an amendment to Article 36 of the Constitution on 17/10/2001.

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

    - 1 case against Austria

    H46-845 32636 A.T., judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

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

    General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published (in ÖIMR-Newsletter 2002/No.2 and Österreichische Juristenzeitung 2002) and disseminated to all relevant courts and authorities in order that relevant conclusions could be drawn. The Austrian delegation has informed the Committee that the Ministry of Justice was contemplating an amendment of Article 8a of the Law on Media in the framework of a reform of this law which is currently under preparation. Further information on this issue is awaited.

    - 14 cases against Belgium

    H46-846 32576 Wynen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    This case concerns an infringement of the applicants’ right to a fair trial before the Cour de cassation in that their complementary observations were declared inadmissible because they were handed in late. The European Court considered that article 420 bis of the Criminal Investigation Code under which applicants on points of law are obliged to file pleadings within two months after registration of the application on the general list, without imposing any comparable time-limit on the respondent, disregarded the principle of equality of arms (violation of article 6 de la Convention).

    General measures: By letter of 14/04/2003, the delegation of Belgium informed the Secretariat that a solution for a general measure was currently under study. Information on that point as well as on dissemination and publication of the judgment of the European Court is expected.

    H46-847 37370 Stratégies et Communications et Dumoulin, judgment of 15/07/02, final on 15/10/02

    The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings (the investigation stage) begun on 24/04/1996, when searches were carried out at the company’s head office and the applicant’s home. The case was still in the hands of the investigating judge and had lasted 6 years and 2 months when the European Court rendered its judgment (violation of Article 6). The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). In this context, the European Court notes that the law of 12/03/1998, which had entered into force on 02/10/1998 and amended Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code, introduced a remedy under domestic law enabling the accused to complain of the length of a criminal investigation. However, the Court noted that Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code raised issues in domestic law which had not yet been resolved (§ 55 of the judgment). Consequently, the Court found that Article 136 had not acquired sufficient legal certainty to constitute a remedy under the terms of Article 13 of the Convention.

    Individual measure: information is awaited concerning the acceleration of the proceedings.

    General measure: information is also awaited concerning the measures taken in order to ensure that article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code acquired sufficient legal certainty to constitute a remedy under the terms of Article 13 of the Convention.

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-138 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/0271

    The case concerns the facts surrounding the expulsion from Belgium of the applicants, Slovakian nationals of Romany origin and asylum seekers. Summoned to the police station under the pretext of completing the files concerning their application for asylum, the applicants were in fact arrested, taken to a closed transit centre and then deported to Slovakia. The European Court found that even as regards aliens who were in breach of the immigration rules, a conscious decision by the authorities to facilitate or improve the effectiveness of a planned operation for the expulsion of aliens by misleading them about the purpose of a notice so as to make it easier to deprive them of their liberty was not compatible with Article 5 (violation of Article 5§1). The conditions of their detention did not permit them to lodge an appeal on the lawfulness of their detention (violation of Article 5§4). The circumstances under which the applicants were deported, at the same time as about 70 other asylum seekers, did not take into account the genuine and individual situation of each of those concerned, leading to a violation of Article 4 of Protocol 4. Finally, the remedies against expulsion, particularly an application to suspend expulsion which may be brought before the Conseil d’Etat, do not present sufficient legal certainly to satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (violation of Article 13 of the Convention combined with Article 4 of Protocol 4).

    General measures: By a letter of 11/10/2002, the Belgian authorities informed the Secretariat that the Ministry of Interior had, on 19/07/2002, adopted a directive concerning the implementation of orders to leave the territory taken against certain unsuccessful asylum seekers. The directive, notified to the Director General of the Aliens’ Office, lays down the rule that “in the case of introduction of applications for stays under the emergency procedure before the Conseil d’Etat of an order to leave the territory taken against an unsuccessful asylum seeker, the order to leave the territory will not be executed as long as the Conseil d’Etat has not ruled on this emergency stay of execution.” Confirmation of the publication of the judgment of the European Court is awaited. Bilateral discussions between the Secretariat and the Belgian authorities to examine other possible general measures are in progress.

    Sub-section 4.2

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

Item

Application

Case

Length of proceedings

Case pending

Start of proceedings

H46-848

50615

Boca, judgment of 15/12/02, final on 15/02/03

2 years and 3 months (summary proceedings: two degrees of instance)

No

17/03/98

H46-131

50855

Dautel, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/0372

More than 9 years and 2 months (two degrees of instance)

Yes

21/10/93

H46-132

49797

De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/0373

Nearly 10 years and 10 months

(two degrees of instance)

Yes

26/12/91

H46-133

49522

Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/0374

More than 8 years and 1 month (the first seven applicants);

No

20/05/92

5 years and 5 months (the other nine applicants) (two degrees of instance)

No

23/01/95

H46-135

50624

Gökce and others, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/0375

More than 9 years and 7 months (two degrees of instance)

Yes

26/05/93

H46-849

50566

Kenes, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

More than 13 years (two degrees of instance)

No

08/01/87

H46-134

49546

Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/0376

More than 8 years and 11 months (two degrees of instance)

Yes

12/11/93

H46-850

49332

Oren & Shoshan, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

More than 8 years and 1 months

(two degrees of instance)

No

10/05/93

H46-136

49794

Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/0377

More than 9 years and 8 months (two degrees of instance)

Yes

01/03/93

H46-851

50172

Randaxhe, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

More than 8 years and 10 months (two degrees of instance)

No

01/06/93

H46-137

49495

S.A. Sitram, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/0378

More than 6 years and 7 months

(two degrees of instance)

Yes

15/03/96

    These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, in particular before the Brussels Court of Appeal (violations of Article 6§1).

    The European Court recalled that the chronic overload of one court did not provide a valid justification for the length of the proceedings.

    Individual measures: At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the acceleration of the 6 proceedings still pending before the Brussels Court of Appeal was requested.

    General measures: information is awaited concerning the publication of the most pertinent judgments of the European Court.

    Sub-section 4.2

    By a letter of 14/04/2003, the Belgian delegation informed the Secretariat of the “measures taken by the Belgium Government in order to reduce the judicial backlog” under the law of 09/07/1997, which also provided for the creation of supplementary chambers to deal with the backlog before the Brussels Court of Appeal. This law, at that time, reduced to one year maximum the waiting period in the Brussels Court of Appeal’s ordinary chambers. Among other measures listed in this letter were the creation of a “Brussels judicial backlog commission” at the initiative the Ministry of Justice; the approval of a bill by the Council of Ministers of 17/03/2000 to increase the number of additional judges for the Brussels Court of Appeal from 25 to 50; a body of provisional advisors to absorb the backlog before courts of appeal was set up under the law of 29/11/2001.

    - 4 cases against Bulgaria

    H46-852 50963 Al-Nashif and others, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    The case concerns the deportation of the first applicant, a stateless person, to Syria on 04/07/1999. The European Court considered that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to family life inasmuch as the applicable legal provisions did not give sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, the first applicant having been deported on the basis of considerations of national security exclusively within the discretionary power of the Minister of the Interior (violation of Article 8). The Court further found that the applicants had not had access to an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). The case finally concerns the fact that the first applicant had, under the applicable law, been given no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention while awaiting deportation (violation of Article 5§4).

    Individual measures: By letter of 02/12/2002, the applicant's lawyer indicated that he had introduced an application to reopen the judicial proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court with a view to lifting the ban on his entry to Bulgaria. By decisions of 08/05/2003 (No. 4332) and 12/05/2003 (No. 4473), the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judicial decisions challenged by the European Court and referred the applicant's complaint back respectively to the Sofia City Court and to the District Court of Smolian for new examination.

    General measures: At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn to a number of problems in the legislation and regulations which were the basis of the violations found by the European Court in the present case (see in particular Articles 46 of the Aliens Law). Indeed, Bulgarian law does not provide for judicial review of the lawfulness of aliens' detention in case of their expulsion on the grounds of national security (cf. Court's finding under Article 5§4), nor of the decision of expulsion itself when such reasons are evoked.

    The Bulgarian authorities have thus been invited to bring domestic law in line with the Convention so as effectively to prevent new violations similar to those found in the present judgment. It was suggested that the experience of other countries which had been confronted with similar problems in the past be taken into account in planning and adopting the general measures in this case (e.g. Chahal against the United Kingdom, judgment of 15/11/1996, Resolution ResDH(2001)119).

    At the 827th meeting (February 2003), the Bulgarian Delegation informed the Committee that their authorities were carefully considering the above-mentioned issues. It added that the translation of the judgment of the European Court into Bulgarian had already been made.

    However, so far no other concrete information has been provided on general measures, adopted or planned. It should be noted that the Administrative Supreme Court observed in its decision No. 4473 of 12/05/2003 that the amendments to the law on foreigners of 22/04/03 did not change the current legal provisions in accordance with the requirements of the Convention.

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-853 33977 Ilijkov, judgment of 26/07/01

    The case concerns the excessive length (more than 3 years and 3 months) of the applicant’s detention on remand between 1993 and 1997(violation of Article 5§3), to the lack of effective judicial review of its lawfulness following applications for release and to the lack of adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Court in respect of these applications (violations of Article 5§4). The case also concerns the excessive length (more than 5 years and 5 months) of the criminal proceedings as a whole (violation of Article 6§1).

    As regards the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand and the lack of effective judicial review of its lawfulness, the present case presents similarities to the Assenov (judgment of 28/10/98) and Nikolova (judgment of 25/03/99) cases closed by Resolutions ResDH(2000)109 and ResDH(2000)110, following a legislative reform of criminal procedures which took effect from 01/01/2000.

    General measures: At the 764th meeting (September 2001), the attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn to §104 of the judgment which reveals that according to the law and established practice in Bulgaria, the prosecution and the individual are not on an equal footing in proceedings before the Supreme Court, since the prosecutor submits arguments which are not communicated to the detainee, who cannot therefore respond (cf. § 61 in fine of the judgment). The Bulgarian authorities have thus been invited to envisage legislative or possibly other measures to put an end to this practice so as to respect the principle of adversarial proceedings under Article 5§4 of the Convention.

    By letters of 24/07/2003 and 25/07/2003 the Bulgarian delegation provided the Secretariat with two recent interpretative judgments (n°1 of 25/06/02 and n°2 of 2002) of the Supreme Court of Cassation and several judgments of domestic courts which refer directly to the Convention and to the European Court's judgments concerning in particular Article 5 and 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Bulgarian authorities indicated that a number of ECHR training activities had been organised for the judiciary in 2002 and 2003.

    The judgment of the European Court was translated, published on the internet site of the ministry of justice www.mjeli.government.bg and disseminated with a circular to domestic courts.

    H46-854 41488 Velikova, judgment of 18/05/00, final on 04/10/00

    H46-855 38361 Anguelova, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

    These cases relate to breaches of the right to life since it has been concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants’ relatives died as a result of injuries inflicted on them while they were detained in police custody on charges of theft (violations of Articles 2 and/or 3). The cases also concern the lack of effective investigation by the Bulgarian authorities into the deaths of the applicants' relatives (violations of Articles 2 and 13). The Anguelova case concerns in addition the failure by the police to provide timely medical care during the detention of the applicant's son (violation of Article 2) and the unlawfulness of his detention as it was not based on a written order as required by domestic law and was not properly recorded in the police custody register (violation of Article 5§1).

    General measures: At the 732nd meeting (December 2000), it was stressed in particular that certain administrative measures (instructions to examining magistrates and prosecutors drawing their attention to §§ 78-79, 82-84 and 89 of the judgment; a circular to judges stressing their powers to supervise investigations) could help prevent similar shortcomings in criminal investigations. Having regard to the Court’s conclusions in §§68-76 of the Velikova judgment, the need for training for the police has also been underlined. Furthermore, information on the possibilities of engaging the civil responsibility of the State and statistics relating to the criminal investigation of officers in similar circumstances has also been requested. During the first examination of the Anguelova judgment (819th meeting, December 2002), it was noted that that the problem of failure to respect the rules governing detention in police custody should also be addressed by the authorities to avoid new similar violations of Article 5§1. The Delegation was asked at the outset to provide the Secretariat with the text of the existing rules in this field.

    Since the Velikova judgment was first examined (December 2000), the Bulgarian Delegation has provided the Committee with the following information:

    - the legislative amendments adopted on 27/04/2001 provide for judicial review of the prosecutor’s decisions to close criminal proceedings and enable courts to send the file back to the prosecutor with instructions to carry out specific investigations; the authorities furthermore recalled that Bulgarian criminal procedure does not oblige prosecutors to seek any authorisation to investigate alleged offences by police officers;

    Sub-section 4.2

    - the case-law of Bulgarian courts is constantly developing so as better to take the Convention and the European Court's case-law into account; this has been demonstrated by a number of domestic judgments which refer directly to the Convention and to the Court's judgments; this development results in increased judicial control over prosecutors' decisions concerning detention in police custody or detention on remand. By letters of 24/07/2003 and 25/07/2003 the Bulgarian delegation provided the Secretariat with two recent interpretative judgments (n°1 of 25/06/02 and n°2 of 2002) of the Supreme Court of Cassation and several judgments of domestic courts which refer directly to the Convention and to the European Court's judgments concerning in particular Article 5 and 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Bulgarian authorities indicated that a number of ECHR training activities had been organised for the judiciary in 2002 and 2003.

    - the Velikova judgment has been translated and disseminated by the Ministry of Justice to the Director of the national police, to the General Prosecutor and to the Director of the special investigation service, with comments on the conclusions to draw from the Court’s findings;

    - Police education and training: in 2001 a total of 500 police officers attended 5 seminars on the requirements of the Convention and of the CPT to be respected in the exercise of their duties; other similar education and training activities are under way. On 09/05/2002 an important high-level working meeting was held in Sofia to discuss various measures adopted or being taken by the enforcement authorities to improve protection against ill-treatment. In 2000 a specialized Human Rights Committee was set up at the National Police Directorate whose main functions are to organize human rights training of the managing and executive police staff and to take concrete measures to prevent cases of police ill-treatment. In the beginning of 2002 was introduced a new blank-declaration, containing information relating to the basic rights of the detained person. The declaration is filled in immediately after the detention in order to make police action transparent and provable.

    - Rules on police detention: By letter of 24/07/03 the Delegation has sent the Secretariat the text of the existing rules in this field. Pursuant to Article 72§1 of the Law on the Ministry of Interior and Article 54§1 of the Rules Implementing this law, issued by the minister of interior, a written order shall be issued for the detention of a person by the police. The order is filed in a special register (Art.54§5 of the Rules). The detained person may contest the legality of his or her detention before the competent court which shall pronounce its decision immediately (Art.70§3 of the law on the Ministry of Interior). Statistics relating to the criminal investigation of cases alleged ill-treatment in police custody have also been provided.

    Further details showing the effectiveness of civil, administrative and criminal remedies against ill-treatment in police custody, including relevant statistics concerning the results of the investigations and the number of convicted persons, are awaited.

    - 9 cases against Croatia

    H46-856 62912 Benzan, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns the applicant’s complaints that he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions under which he was detained in B-wing of the Lepoglava State Prison (complaint under Article 3) and that that he had no remedy in this respect (complaint under Article 13). The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to respect of his correspondence in that he was prevented from contacting his lawyer (complaint under Article 8).

    In June 2002 the applicant was moved to another cell in one of the renovated wings of the above mentioned prison (see § 15 of the judgment). According to the friendly settlement concluded, the Croatian Government, in addition to payment of compensation, undertakes to renovate B-Wing before the end of September 2003.

    General measures: By letter of 04/09/03 the Croatian delegation indicated that the renovation of B-wing is currently being carried out with a view to its completion by the end of October and that the prisoners should be transferred to the renovated wing in December 2003. Further information concerning this subject and the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to prison authorities is awaited.

    Sub-section 4.2

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46-860 51585 Horvat, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46-858 54727 Cerin, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

    H46-859 52634 Futterer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    H46-861 49706 Rajak, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46-862 48771 Delić, judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

    H46-863 45435 Radoš and 4 others, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

    H46-864 56773 Rajčević, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 06/11/02

    H46-857 58115 Čuljak and others, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, which began between 1975 and 1995 and lasted between 3 and 25 years79 (violations of Article 6§1). In the Čuljak and others case one set of proceedings was stayed in accordance with the law of 29/10/1999 providing that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from acts of members of the Croatian army or police committed during the war in Croatia, were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.

    The cases of Horvat, Delić and Radoš and others also concern the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law since the formal institution of proceedings upon a complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court depended on the discretion of the latter (violations of Article 13).

    Individual measures: In the Rajčević and Rajak cases, the proceedings were ended by a final judgment of 06/02/2002 and 25/09/2002. In the other cases, the proceedings are still pending and further information is awaited.

    General measures: The first five judgments of the European Court have already been translated, and disseminated to domestic courts. They have also been published on the official internet site of the Government www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html and in legal journals.

    - As regards the violation of Article 13, a new Act amending the Act on the Constitutional Court entered into force on 15/03/2002. In the case of Radoš and others and in the admissibility decisions in the cases of Slaviček (decision of 04/07/2002), Nogolica (decision of 05/09/2002), Plaftak and others (decision of 03/10/2002), Jeftić (decision of 03/10/2002) and Sahini (decision of 11/10/2002), the European Court found that the new Section 63 of this law provided an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning excessive length of proceedings. It should be noted that in the Šoć case, examined in Section 2 at this meeting, the Court considered that this provision does not represent an effective remedy in respect of the length of civil proceedings that had already come to an end.

    - As regards the violation of Article 6§1, an Act amending the Act on Civil Procedure was adopted on 14/07/2003. Further information concerning the relevant provisions of this law is awaited. The Croatian government adopted the “Strategy for the Reform of the Judicial System”, a document setting the short-term and long-term objectives for overall judicial reform. The strategy is intended to be implemented before the end of 2007.

    - As regards the violation of Article 6§1 in the Čuljak and others case due to the stayed civil proceedings, an Act on the liability of the Republic of Croatia for damage caused by members of the Croatian armed forces and police forces during the homeland war was adopted by the parliament on 14/07/2003. This law provides for the resumption of the civil proceedings which had been stayed in accordance with the law of 29/10/1999.

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 1 case against Cyprus

    H46-865 44730 Serghides and Christoforou, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    The case concerns the expropriation of part of the applicant’s property (2 060 square feet out of 23 488), without the applicant being notified and without the right to compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1). Between 1978 and 1979, the District Land Registry Office of Nicosia registered the disputed area as part of the public domain.

    The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in order to determine the lawfulness of the action complained of. The Supreme Court at first instance in 1993 rejected the applicant’s motion as having been filed out of time even though she had never received notification of the expropriation of part of her land. Furthermore the same court, seised at appeal in 1998, dismissed her appeal on the grounds that she had no locus standi: It found that the applicant, by giving her property away, despite the fact that the gift did not include the expropriated part, had forfeited her legitimate interest in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

    Finally, the case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings which lasted from 17/11/1989 to 27/02/1998 (8 years 3 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

    General measures: At the 834th meeting (April 2003), publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court were requested; in addition, the Committee asked whether legislative amendments were envisaged.

    - 24 cases against France

    H46-867 36436 Piron, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

    The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations regarding consolidation of parcels of land, before administrative courts. When the European Court delivered its judgment, these proceedings had already lasted, for the purposes of the Convention, 26 years, 5 months and were still pending (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as she had been deprived of a part of her property in consequence of the same proceedings, without obtaining adequate compensation (i.e. for being deprived of her property and for damages resulting from the length of this privation) within a reasonable time (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

    Individual measures: It has been suggested, since the first examination of the case at the 749th meeting (April 2001), that particular attention be paid to closing the case at national level (the proceedings lasted 26 years and 5 months for the purposes of the Convention, but actually more than 35 years). At the 764th meeting (September 2001), the Representative of France stated that the case was pending before the Conseil d’Etat. The judgment of the European Court recalls that it was for national tribunals to evaluate the material damage. By a letter dated 13/06/2002, the Representative of France stated that the case was still pending before the Conseil d’Etat because the applicant was not satisfied with the sum proposed by the competent authority (Commission d’aménagement foncier).

    General measures: Information has been requested in particular at the 819th (December 2002) and 827th (February 2003) meeting concerning the running and the workload of commissions responsible for consolidating parcels of land. This information is expected.

    Sub-section 4.2

    H32-868 33656 Lemoine Daniel, Interim Resolution DH(2000)16

    This case concerns the fact that the applicant could not contest before a court a decision discharging him from his post in 1988, on grounds of physical unfitness; this resulted from the fact that a non-judicial organ, a commission instituted by the French railway company (Société nationale des chemins de fer - S.N.C.F.), had exclusive jurisdiction in this field (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations – about four years and five months from 1989 to 1996 (violation of Article 6§1).

    Individual measures: Following the finding of a violation in this case, the applicant has started new proceedings before the civil courts, with a view first to annulling the decision to lay him off and securing re-employment in the S.N.C.F. and secondly to have an expert opinion on his state of health. According to information submitted by the applicant, the hearing before the Rennes Court of Appeal is scheduled for 02/12/2003.

    General measures: By letter dated 18/04/2000, the French authorities indicated that, by decision of 15/03/1999, the Minister of Transport modified Article 15 of the S.N.C.F. regulation concerning occupational health and the organisation of the occupational health service. Henceforth, Article 15 b) provides that “(…) in the specific case of disagreement, where an agent contests a decision taken by the company occupational health officer declaring him/her unfit for his/her job, the agent can seise the transport labour inspector, who will take a decision, upon consultation with the transport occupational health officer”. By letter dated 04/06/2003, the French Delegation indicated that several appeals existed against the transport labour inspector’s decision, who is a common law labour inspector: submission for an out-of-court settlement to the inspector who took the decision; disciplinary complaint to the Minister of Transport; submission for a legal settlement before the administrative court.

    As far as the length of the proceedings is concerned, general measures have been adopted in the framework of the execution of the Hermant case (application No. 31603, Final Resolution ResDH(2003)88).

    H46-869 40472 Tricard, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

    This case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a tribunal (violation of Article 6§1). The applicant, domiciled (and actually living) in French Polynesia and a litigant in criminal proceedings in metropolitan France, had his appeal on a point of law rejected on the grounds that it was out of time, in accordance with Articles 568 and 271, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In accordance with these Articles and the relevant case-law, the applicant could lodge an appeal on point of law within five clear days following the date of issue of the notification of the contested decision. However, in the present case, due to the length of time taken to deliver post to French Polynesia, the notification was received 7 days after it had been sent, i.e. after expiry of the time-limit for appeal.

    General measures: Publication and the dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the Court of cassation were requested at the 775th meeting (December 2001). At that meeting, France had also been invited to take measures so as to ensure that similar violations could not happen again. Information in this respect is awaited.

    Individual measures: The applicant may request the re-opening of his case on basis of Articles 626-1 to 626-7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-195 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber80

    H46-870 38436 APBP, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

    H46-622 38748 Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/0281

    H46-152 44565 Theraube, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 21/05/0382

    CM/Inf(2003)15

    These cases concern infringements of the right to a fair trail on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the trial bench in proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat (violations of Article 6§1). The Government Commissioner (Commissaire du Gouvernement) actually takes no part in voting within the trial bench, as he has already expressed his submissions on the case orally during the hearing. He attends the deliberations and answers, if necessary, any question which might be put to him. On this point, the European Court considered that the advantage for the bench of this purely technical assistance by the Government Commissioner in the deliberations “is to be weighed against the higher interest of the litigant, who must have a guarantee that the Government Commissioner cannot, through his presence to influence their outcome.” (see § 85 of the Kress judgment).

    The Kress case also concerns the excessive length (10 years, 1 month, 8 days) of the proceedings before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1).

    General measures: the French delegation sent to the Secretariat a copy of the memorandum of 23/11/2001 addressed to Government Commissioners by the Président de la section du contentieux of the Conseil d’Etat, in which it is in particular explained that they may continue to attend deliberations on condition that they do not take the initiative of speaking during the deliberations. Both points of view concerning that measure have already been described in a document dated 31/03/2003 (CM/Inf(2003)15) as well as in a note submitted by the Government in June 2003. The recent case-law of the European Court does not clarify the questions under discussion.

    H46-871 36515 Fretté, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

    The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat in 1996 (violation of Article 6§1). According to the practice in force at the time of the facts, the applicant, who was not represented, was not summoned to the hearing; consequently, he did not have the opportunity to be informed of the submissions of the Government Commissioner (Commissaire du Gouvernement) and therefore could not answer them. Not being represented, neither could he get the general sense of these submissions. He was thus denied a fair hearing of his case in adversarial proceedings.

    General measures: Since 01/01/2001, all parties have been notified of hearing dates. Information concerning the measures concretely adopted by the Conseil d’Etat towards applicants not represented by a lawyer, as regards communication to them of the general tenor of the submissions of the Government Commissioner, is awaited.

    Sub-section 4.2

        - 16 cases concerning the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of a criminal charge before the administrative courts

Item

Application

Case

Length of proceedings

Case pending

Start of proceedings

Cases concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-872

37565

Sapl, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

More than 9 years and 4 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

24/12/92

H46-167

58600

Benhaim, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/0383

9 years, 4 months and 2 weeks (1 preliminary demand and 2 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

13/09/90

H46-873

49544

Butel, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

- 1st set of proceedings: 6 years and 1 month (1 degree of instance)

No

01/03/94

- 2nd set of proceedings: at least 8 years, 2 months and 2 weeks (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

16/03/94

- 3rd set of proceedings: 6 years and more than 2 months (1 preliminary demand and 1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

11/02/95

- 4th set of proceedings: almost 5 years and 2 months (1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

09/10/95

- 7th set of proceedings: 3 years, 8 months and more than 1 week (1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

11/09/96

- 8th set of proceedings: almost 5 years and 6 months (1 degree of jurisdiction)

Yes

11/04/97

- 9th set of proceedings: 4 years, 7 months and nearly 2 weeks (1 preliminary demand and 1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

06/09/95

H46-168

41358

Desmots, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 06/11/0284

More than 8 years and 6 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

01/06/89

H46-170

50368

Heidecker-Carpentier, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/0385

10 years, 2 months and 13 days (1 degree of jurisdiction)

Yes

10/01/90

H46-171

43969

Kroliczek, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 21/05/0386

Almost 9 years and 2 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

28/09/88

H46-165

39282

Laidin Monique No. 2, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/200387

- 1st set of proceedings: 7 years, 4 months and 14 days (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

17/03/89

- 2nd set of proceedings: 8 years, 4 months and 15 days (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

16/03/88

- 3rd set of proceedings: 4 years and 8 months (1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

08/11/90

- 5th set of proceedings: 4 years and 8 months (1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

08/11/90

    Sub-section 4.2

Item

Application

Case

Length of proceedings

Case pending

Start of proceedings

H46172

44964

Louerat, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/0388

- 1st set of proceedings: 7 years and nearly 4 months (1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

07/02/92

- 2nd set of proceedings: 10 years and nearly 10 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

07/02/92

- 3rd set of proceedings: 10 years and nearly 9 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

11/03/92

- 4th set of proceedings: 10 years and more than 7 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

24/04/92

H46-173

60545

Perhirin, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 21/05/0389

7 years and 11 months (1 preliminary demand and 3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

18/02/92

H46-174

51066

Raitiere, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/0390

6 years and 10 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

08/04/92

H46-175

43719

Scotti, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/0391

8 years, 3 months and 19 days (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

07/08/89

H46-196

56198

Société Industrielle d’Entretien et de Service S.I.E.S., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/0292

More than 7 years and 5 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

27/09/94

H46-197

51179

Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/0293

- 1st set of proceedings: almost 10 years and 9 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

24/04/91

- 2nd set of proceedings: nearly 9 years and 7 months (1 degree of jurisdiction)

No

30/11/89

H46-176

48954

Traore, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/0394

More than 9 years and 2 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

Yes

09/09/92

Cases concerning the determination of criminal charge before the administrative courts

H46-169

46215

Faivre, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/0395

More than 10 years and 7 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

15/11/91

H46-177

52116

Vieziez, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 21/05/0396

10 years and 19 days (3 degrees of jurisdiction)

No

06/02/89

    These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1).

    The first fourteen cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts. The Louerat case also concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings which began in 1991 (7 years and 4 months for three degrees of juridiction). As to the Laidin Monique No. 2 case, it also concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings introduced in June 1989 before the civil courts: more than 11 years and 4 months, for 3 degrees (violation article 6§1);

    Sub-section 4.2

    furthermore this case concerns the fact that, when the application was made, no effective remedy was available in this respect either in administrative law (see in this regard the Lutz judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002 which appears in sub-section 6.2) or in civil law (on this point the European Court noted that application for compensation under Article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had, since the facts at the origin of the present case, acquired sufficient legal certainty to be considered effective – see the Court’s decisions in Giummarra and others (12/06/2001) and Mifsud (11/09/2002)) (violations of Article 13).

    The cases of Faivre and Vieziez concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning criminal charges before the administrative courts.

    Individual measures: the acceleration of the proceedings which are still pending has been requested. In the Sapl case, on 08/07/03, the Secretariat received a letter from the applicant’s counsel, indicating that the pre-trial investigation stage before the Lyon administrative court of appeal was not yet closed, and that the registry of this court could not say whether or not the case would be heard before the end of the year. Moreover, in the Perhirin case, the applicant has applied for a review before the special cassation commission for pensions (CSCP), temporarily joined to the Conseil d’Etat.

    General measures: During the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Secretariat asked for information in respect of the measures taken to resolve the problem of the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts.

    - 1 case against Germany

    H46-874 37568 Böhmer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03

    The case concerns the decision of the Hamburg Appeal Court of 16/10/1996 to revoke the suspended prison sentence of two years with four years’ probation, pronounced against the applicant on 14/06/1991. The European Court considered that the Appeal Court had breached the presumption of the applicant’s innocence and thus his right to a fair trial in that, in substantiating the decision to revoke the suspension, it went into an in-depth analysis of the applicant’s guilt with regard to other proceedings still pending in order to conclude that the applicant had committed a criminal offence during the probation period (violations of Articles 6§§1 and 2).

    Individual measures: The Pardon Division at the Hamburg Court of Appeal suspended the execution of the sentence pending the result of the proceedings before the European Court. Further information is expected on this matter.

    General measures: At the 847th meeting (July 2003), publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all criminal courts were requested.

    - 1 case against Greece

    H46-875 46355 Tsirikakis, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 10/07/02 and of 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03 (Article 41)97

    - 47 cases against Italy

    H46-876 37119 N.F., judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

    The case concerns in particular an unlawful interference with the freedom of association of the applicant, a judge, on account of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him in 1994 because he belonged to a Masonic association. The Court considered that the sanction was not “foreseeable” or “prescribed by the law” because the provisions at its basis (namely, Article 18 of Royal Decree No. 511 of 31/05/1946 combined with a 1990 directive of the Supreme Judicial Board) were not clear enough (violation of Article 11).

    Sub-section 4.2

    A new directive, clearly establishing the incompatibility of membership of Masonic associations with the exercise of judicial functions was issued in 1993 (when the procedure against the applicant had already started). The applicant indicated his wish that the disciplinary proceedings be reviewed and drew attention to Article 37§6 of the 1946 Decree, which may allow for such a revision (see §42 of the judgment).

    Individual measures: The applicant complained, in a letter received on 27/01/2003, that he had been unable to obtain promotion as a consequence of the disciplinary sanction imposed on him. He has informed the Committee that his request for revision of the impugned disciplinary procedure had been rejected by the Supreme Judicial Board (C.S.M.) on 30/07/2002 on the grounds that the European Court’s judgment could not be considered a “new fact” and that Italian law does not allow reopening of proceedings on the basis of the findings of the European Court of Human Rights. The C.S.M. also rejected the applicant’s request to have the Court’s judgment mentioned in his professional file. On the other hand, the C.S.M. decision of July 2000 not to grant promotion to the applicant because of his disciplinary sanction of 1994 was quashed by the regional administrative court on 11/07/2002. The C.S.M. has however appealed against this decision before the Council of State and the proceedings are currently pending. The Italian authorities have indicated that a Council of State decision in favour of the applicant would allow the consequences of the violation found to be erased, as the C.S.M. would then have to reconsider the applicant’s request for promotion. In the meantime, by a decision dated 02/04/2003, the C.S.M. partially revised its previous decision, by retroactively acknowledging the applicant’s promotion as of 16/10/2000. The applicant maintains however that the decision should apply as from 16/10/1997.

    General measures: The Italian authorities indicated that the judgment would be published in Quaderni, the legal journal of the Supreme Judicial Board (C.S.M.).

    - Cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

    H46-877 22774 Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99

    H46-878 22534 A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00

    H32-879 20177 Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413 of 17/09/97

    H46-880 35550 Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-212 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/0398

    H46-213 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/0399

    H46-881 34819 Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-214 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03100

    H46-253 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03101

    H46-882 32589 D.V. II, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-215 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03102

    H46-883 30883 Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-884 33909 Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-885 34454 Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-886 32577 Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-216 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03103

    H46-217 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03104

    H46-887 22671 G.L. IV, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

    H46-218 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03105

    H46-888 28272 Ghidotti, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

    H46-219 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03106

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-889 32006 Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-220 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03107

    H46-890 32766 Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-891 32392 L. and P., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-221 33696 L. and P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03108

    H46-254 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03109

    H46-892 21463 Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

    H46-893 32391 M.C. XI, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-894 31923 M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-255 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03110

    H46-222 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03111

    H46-895 31129 Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-896 24650 P.M., judgment of 11/01/01, final on 5/09/01

    H46-897 15919 Palumbo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

    H46-898 30530 Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-899 32644 Sanella, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-223 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03112

    H46-900 33227 Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-901 31223 T.C.U., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-902 23424 Tanganelli, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

    H46-224 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03113

    H46-903 33252 Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-256 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03114

    H46-904 30972 V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46-905 35006 Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    These cases mainly concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, principally on account of the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions. The European Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the protection of the applicants’ right to property and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In most of these cases, the Court also concluded that, as a result of the legislation at issue, rendering eviction orders nugatory, the applicants had been deprived of their right to have their disputes decided by a court, contrary to the principle of the rule of law (violation of Article 6§1).

    94 further cases similar to these, having led to the conclusion of friendly settlements (including those under Section 2 of this Agenda), have been examined to date by the Committee of Ministers.

    Individual measures: Information is expected on measures envisaged in order to allow the applicants in the cases of C.T. II (35428), Esposito Paola (30883), M.P. (31923) and Marini (35088), to recover possession of their apartments and thus put to an end the violations found. In the other cases, the applicants recovered their apartments between 1992 and 2001, i.e. between 5 and 17 years after the eviction decisions had been issued.

    Sub-section 4.2

    General measures: A law was adopted in December 1998 (Law No. 431/98 “Regulations concerning the renting and the repossession of housing”), which sets - inter alia - the conditions, modalities and deadlines for the enforcement of eviction decisions. However, this law has not solved the problems at the origin of these cases and it is still difficult in Italy to have eviction decisions enforced, notably due to the lack of police forces available for this task, to the recurrent adoption of new legislation suspending evictions (for example, they are currently suspended until 30/06/2004 as regards certain categories of tenants) and to the tenants’ and State’s impunity in case of non-enforcement of judicial decisions. According to statistical data forwarded by the Italian authorities on 04/07/2003, concerning the period 1983-2002, the number of eviction orders implemented has remained stable around 18 000 per year. On the other hand, following the adoption of the Law of 1998, the number of requests of implementation of eviction orders decreased by 23,64% between 1998 and 1999, from 126 011 to 96 219 and the number of eviction procedures also decreased from 50 226 in 1997 to 37 610 in 2002. By letter of 19/06/2001, the Italian authorities informed the Committee that the Ministry for Home Affairs was approaching the other competent departments in order to identify further and more effective measures, both on the administrative and legislative level, notably with a view to simplifying the proceedings. Information is expected on the outcome of the ongoing reflections. In addition, the Immobiliare Saffi judgment has been published in the legal journal Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, No. 1/2000, P. 252-265.

    At the time of issuing these notes, a draft interim resolution was being prepared for discussion at the present meeting. This draft will be distributed separately as soon as it is ready.

    - 1 case against Liechtenstein

    H46-1123 28396 Wille, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

    The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression on the grounds that the Head of State of Liechtenstein, His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II, informed him, in a letter of 27/02/1995, that he would not appoint him to public office on account of certain constitutional views the applicant had expressed (violation of Article 10). The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy to defend his reputation and to seek protection of his personal rights (violation of Article 13).

    General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in German in the Liechtensteinische Juristen-Zeitung, December 2000 edition; compensation was paid. By letter of 24/09/2002 (answering the Secretariat's letter of 26/04/2002), the Representative of Liechtenstein informed the Committee of Ministers that Article 23 of the Law on the State Court provides a remedy in case of alleged violations of the European Convention by courts and governmental authorities. He also indicated that the Liechtenstein courts give direct effect to the case-law of the European Court with respect to all material rights, but thus so far not to Article 13. His authorities were, however, considering a change in the law on the State Court to remove any legal uncertainties.

    In the meantime the necessary steps have been taken, since the amendments to the Constitution adopted by referendum also required an overall revision of the law on the State Court (as well as of other laws). The need for clarification of the competence of the State Court to hear cases of alleged violations of the European Convention rights by any public authority have been taken into account in the proposed new text. A copy of the new draft of Article 15 of the State Court Act, which introduces a clear individual right to a remedy before the State Court to check the conformity with the Convention of any exercise of state power (öffentliche Gewalt - thus also where exercised by the Prince), was received on 12/09/2003. It is foreseen that the new draft will be examined by Parliament (Landtag) at its September 2003 session.

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 1 case against Lithuania

    H46-841 41510 Jasiūnienė, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

    This case concerns the executive authorities’ failure to execute a judgment of the Klaipėda Regional Court of 03/04/1996 requiring them to take appropriate measures to choose the form of compensation to be afforded to the applicant in respect of her late mother’s land, which had been nationalised during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania. The European Court considered that, at least from 02/06/1999 (the date of adoption of a law authorising the authorities in such cases to choose the most appropriate form of compensation under judicial control) the Lithuanian authorities, by failing to take steps to execute the judgment, had unjustifiably infringed the applicant’s right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

    The Court also decided that, by failing to comply with the judgment, the national authorities had prevented the applicant from obtaining the compensation she could reasonably have expected to receive, and so infringed her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). When the European Court rendered its judgment, the domestic judgment had still not been complied with.

    Individual measures: By letter dated 27/08/03, the Lithuanian delegation provided the following information. On 14/03/03, the Government’s agent informed the Governor of the region of Klaipėda, in writing, of the violations found by the Court in this case; subsequently, on 31/03/03 the Governor of the region of Klaipėda asked the Mayor of the City of Palanga (the city where the contested piece of land is located) to find a solution to the problem. The text of the judgment of the European Court and its translation into Lithuanian were also presented to the authorities concerned. In another letter dated 12/06/03, the Government’s agent repeatedly drew the above mentioned authorities’ attention to the applicant’s imperative demand to fulfil her right to the property which had belonged to her mother. The applicant refuses both the plot of land that was offered to her in compensation and any pecuniary compensation. The Palanga town council is trying to find another solution which could be accepted in this case. The Government’s agent has asked the Governor of the region of Klaipėda and the Mayor of Palanga to inform him of any further measures envisaged in order to implement the judgment of the European Court.

    General measures: In its letter of 27/08/03, the Lithuanian delegation indicated that the judgment of the European Court had already been translated and transmitted by the Government’s agent to the local authorities concerned. The Government is aware of the aspects of Lithuanian law which raise problems in respect of the Convention. Furthermore, the judgment will be published next year in the annual compendium Europos žmogaus teisių teismo sprendimai bylose prieš Lietuvos Respubliką.

    - 1 case against Malta

    H46-842 55263 Kadem, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    The case concerns the fact that the applicant was unable to obtain a prompt judicial decision concerning the lawfulness under Maltese law of his arrest and detention with a view to his extradition to the Kingdom of Morocco (during the period October 1998 – September 1999) (violation of Article 5§4).

    On 15/01/1999 the applicant was released on the grounds that there was no evidence to justify his extradition to Morocco and the police, acting as the immigration authority, ordered him to return to the Netherlands within hours. On 01/09/1999, the applicant’s action challenging the lawfulness of his detention was declared to have been abandoned and his case was struck off the list.

    The case presents some similarities to those of Aquilina (judgment of 29/04/1999), T.W (judgment of 29/04/1999) and Sabeur Ben Ali (judgment of 29/06/2000), which appear in sub-section 6.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business.

    Individual measures: Information as to whether the applicant can return to Malta, if he so wishes, has been requested.

    General measures: Information has been requested as regards the applicability of the legislative changes following the Aquilina case to the circumstances of this case.

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 14 cases against Poland

    H46-907 26229 Gawęda, judgment of 14/03/02

    The case relates to the Polish courts’ refusal to register the names of the applicant’s two new periodicals on the basis of provisions of the Press Act of 26/01/1984 and of the ordinance of the Minister of Justice on the register of periodicals. The European Court found that these provisions did not meet the Convention’s requirements of clarity and predictability and allowed too wide a discretion on the part of the authorities (violation of Article 10).

    Individual measures: At the 798th meeting (June 2002), the Polish delegation stated that there should now be no obstacle to the registration of the periodicals concerned.

    General measures: By letter of 30/05/03 the Polish delegation sent to the Secretariat the text of the Press Law of 1984 currently governing the registration of periodicals. Further information concerning relevant provisions adopted for the implementation of this law is awaited.

    The Ministry of Justice has informed presidents of appeal courts of the European Court’s judgment. Confirmation of the publication of the judgment is awaited.

    H46-908 28249 Kreuz, judgment of 19/06/01

    The case concerns the violation in 1994 of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the fact that domestic courts refused his exemption from payment of court fees without sufficient justification so that he was forced to drop his claim as the amount of the court fees he was required to pay was too high (violation of Article 6§1).

    General measures: At the 764th meeting (October 2001), the Representative of Poland recalled that this judgment posed a problem of access to justice and stated that the Ministry of Justice would attentively study the general measures to be adopted to remedy the shortcomings highlighted by the European Court. At the 798th meeting (June 2002), the Polish Delegation announced that legislative measures concerning access to courts in connection with court fees were under way. Further information concerning this subject is awaited.

    The Ministry of Justice has sent circulars to Presidents of courts of appeal drawing the attention of the judges to the European Court’s reasoning concerning the errors made by the domestic courts in this case.

    H46-910 26761 Płoski, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for private and family life because of the refusal to allow him, at the material time detained on remand, to attend his parents’ funerals (violation of Article 8).

    General measures: Information concerning the publication and the dissemination of the judgment of the European Court is awaited. Copies of the relevant provisions regulating the granting of permission to leave for family reasons were requested at the 834th meeting (April 2003).

    H46-911 25196 Iwanczuk, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02115

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-552 34049 Zwierzynski, judgments of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 and of 02/07/02, final on 24/06/03116

    The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, lodged by the Treasury and aimed at acquiring property which had been returned to the applicant by judicial decision: when the European Court delivered its judgment, the case was still pending before the Lomza district Court and had already lasted, within the meaning of the Convention, 8 years and 1 month (violation of Article 6§1).

    The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions because of the proceedings lodged by the state, without any reason of “public interest”, which have resulted in the postponement of the effective restitution of the property to the applicant (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

    Just satisfaction: the European Court decided, under Article 41, that the respondent State had to restitute the property to the applicant within three months from the date at which the judgment would become final. Failing such restitution, the State had to pay the applicant, within the same time-limit, a sum of money corresponding to the value of the building (60 500 euros). The time-limit expired on 06/02/2003.

    At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Deputies decided to postpone the examination of this case pending the outcome of the first revision procedure initiated by the Government on 01/10/2002 against the judgments delivered by the European Court on the merits and on Article 41.

    After its dismissal by the Court on 22/01/2003, the Government lodged a new request for revision on 06/02/2003. The revision was requested in view of the fact that proceedings were pending at the national level aiming at contesting the property right of the applicant’s father over the building at issue at the time of the expropriation. On 24/06/2003, the European Court rejected the second request for revision lodged by the Government.

    Still at the 819th meeting, the Polish delegation informed the Committee that the government had taken steps to return the building at issue to the applicant, who refused it, however, preferring to be paid the pecuniary damage afforded by the Court. A notarised deed has been drawn up to this effect.

    Individual measures: the Lomza district Court delivered its judgment on 21/09/2001 and dismissed the Treasury action for acquisition of the building at issue; the Treasury appealed against the court’s decision, but only on the issue of the determination of court fees. Information concerning the outcome of these proceedings is expected.

    Information is also expected as to whether the building at issue was returned to the applicant within the time-limit set by the Court (expired on 06/02/2003) and especially whether mention was made in the land register of the applicant’s property right to the building.

    General measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court translated into Polish is under way. The judgment was communicated to the Ministry of Justice for dissemination to courts, and to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for dissemination in particular to the police. At the 819th meeting, the Polish delegation indicated that the text of the Court’s judgments has been distributed to judges and prosecutors. Written information is expected especially as regards the publication of the judgment translated into Polish.

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-912 30210 Kudła, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber

    H46-919 37443 Lisiak, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    CM/Inf(2003)42

    These cases concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicants, which started in 1991 (more than 9 years and 11 years and 1 month)117 (violation of Article 6§1).

    The case of Kudla also concerns the excessive length (2 years, 4 months) of the applicant’s detention on remand on charges of fraud and forgery (violation of Article 5§3) and the lack of effective remedies to enforce, at national level, the applicant’s right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” (violation of Article 13).

    As regards the length of the detention on remand, the case of Kudla presents similarities to the cases of Trzaska and others, which are examined in Section 4.2 at this meeting.

    Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings in the Lisiak case.

    General measures: During the first examination of the Kudla case (732nd meeting, December 2000), the Committee noted the breadth of the scope of this judgment: for the first time the Court had applied Article 13 of the Convention in order to affirm that contracting States must provide effective domestic remedies so as to resolve the problem of excessive length of proceedings. The Committee also took note of the fact that the remedies required in this regard by Article 13 could be both compensatory and preventive (§159 of the judgment). It was suggested that general consideration be given to this topic, notably within the CDDH and its expert sub-committees, in order to facilitate the search for suitable solutions in member states. The Committee nonetheless considered that this general consideration must not be allowed to prejudice the Committee’s supervision of measures that Poland will adopt to comply with the Kudła judgment in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention.

    At the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Representative of Poland informed the Committee of the progress made in adoption of general measures. He referred in particular to:

      - a number of improvements of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in a draft law which has already been submitted to Parliament;

      - a draft law prepared by a group of experts which provides mainly for compensatory but also for some preventive remedies against the excessive length of judicial proceedings (the draft is still being considered by the Government);

      - a new decision of the Constitutional Court of 18/12/2001, which might open a way to civil claims against State officials on the grounds of excessive length of judicial proceedings.

    At the 798th (June 2002) and 819th (December 2002) meetings, it was stated that work on the new draft law was continuing and that no other information was available.

    By letter of 07/02/2003, the Polish Delegation informed the Secretariat that following extensive consultations between the competent authorities at the national level, the draft law mentioned above had not been approved, particularly given the serious risk of overburdening of domestic courts with new complaints. As a result, the Civil Law Codification Committee had been mandated to prepare a new draft law. A preliminary working version of a new draft, which provides for both compensatory and preventive remedies, was submitted to the Secretariat on 10/04/2003 and informal consultations with the Polish Delegation took place shortly after this date.

    By letter of 02/07/03, the Polish Delegation indicated a number of legislative measures aiming at the acceleration of the criminal procedures which were taken within the framework of the provisions of the Code of penal procedure of 1997 and in particular by its last amendments which came into effect on 01/07/2003. According to the most important provisions, courts will no longer have the possibility of remitting the case back to the preliminary proceedings in order to conduct further investigations, the possibility of closing criminal proceedings by way of settlement was increased, preparatory proceedings and those concerning several co-defendants were simplified.

    The Polish Delegation also indicated that a memorandum (see CM/Inf(2003)42), concerning in particular the draft law of 20/08/03 on a remedy for excessive length of judicial proceedings and the draft law of 08/04/03 amending the provisions of the Civil Code on civil liability of the State Treasury for unlawful action or omission of public authorities, would be submitted to Deputies at the present meeting.

    Information regarding further progress of the draft law and other possible general measures adopted or envisaged is awaited.

    Sub-section 4.2

    - Cases of length of criminal proceedings

    H46-913 25792 Trzaska, judgment of 11/07/00

    H46-915 33492 Jabłoński, judgment of 21/12/00

    H46-916 33079 Szeloch, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

    H46-918 27504 Iłowiecki, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

    H46-914 28358 Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00

    H46-917 34097 Kreps, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46-920 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

    These cases, except the Baranowski case, concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand between 1991 and 1997, given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the case-law of the European Court, “relevant and sufficient” and since “special diligence” was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings (violations of Article 5§3).

    The cases of Trzaska, Jabłoński, Iłowiecki and Baranowski also concern the domestic courts' failure to examine promptly the applicants’ requests for release. In the Trzaska case, the European Court also found that the proceedings aimed at reviewing the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand were not adversarial (violations of Article 5§4).

    All the cases, except the Baranowski case, also concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1).

    Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings has been requested in the Iłowiecki and Olstowski cases, which are still pending at national level. Further information concerning the state of these proceedings is awaited.

    General measures:

    - As regards the violations of Article 5§§3 and 4: By letter of 02/07/2003 the Polish delegation sent the Secretariat copies of the relevant provisions of the Criminal procedure code of 1997 concerning the reasons for ordering and prolonging detention on remand and the time-limits set. Additional information is awaited about the effectiveness of these measures as well as measures concerning the prompt examination of appeals against the detention on remand.

    The Ministry of Justice has sent circulars, drawing the attention of courts and public prosecutors to the reasoning required for decisions prolonging detention on remand. The first five judgments were published in the Bulletin of the Council of Europe Information Center and disseminated to the competent authorities.

    - As regards the violation of Article 5§4, in respect of the lack of fairness of the procedure aimed at reviewing the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand, the case of Trzaska present similarities to the Niedbała case (judgment of 04/07/2000), closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)124, following a legislative reform of the penal proceedings, which took effect from 01/09/1998.

    - As regards the violations of Article 6§1: The cases present similarities with a number of other cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings, pending before the Committee of Ministers for control of general measures (see in particular Podbielski, Styranowski and Kudła, which are examined in sub-sections 5.1 and 4.2).

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 31 cases against Romania

    H54-922 27273 Petra, judgment of 23/09/98

    The case concerns the opening and delaying of the applicant’s correspondence with the former European Commission of Human Rights and, in this respect, the latitude which the relevant law leaves to the national authorities to effect such acts (violation of article 8). It also relates to the fact that in his correspondence with the Commission, the applicant suffered hindrance in the exercise of his individual right of petition in the form of illegitimate and unacceptable pressure from the prison authorities (violation of former Article 25).

    General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in the official gazette and the Romanian delegation has transmitted a copy of a circular addressed to prison administrations concerning the right to respect of prisoners’ correspondence. The Secretariat is awaiting information about legislative measures concerning the “execution of sentences of imprisonment”, and especially about the provisions relating to prisoners’ correspondence. At the 721st meeting (September 2000), the Romanian Delegation indicated that the bill in question had been tabled but that the legislative modification had already been made by way of an order. At the 749th meeting (April 2001), the delegation stated that the “package” of bills, including one concerning the correspondence of detainees relevant to this case, had been withdrawn for examination by the new government. At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the delegation indicated that a draft law was before the Parliament.

    By letter of 11/09/2003, the Romanian delegation indicated that on 25/06/2003, the Government adopted an “emergency ordinance” on certain rights of persons serving prison sentences, which aims at harmonising domestic law with the Convention standards laid down in the Petra case. This Ordinance has legislative value and will be in force until it is either approved or rejected by Parliament. According to the information submitted by the delegation, the draft law approving the ordinance has already been adopted by one chamber on 27/08/2003. The Secretariat is currently examining the provisions of this ordinance.

    H46-923 28341 Rotaru, judgment of 04/05/00 - Grand Chamber

    The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in that the relevant national legislation does not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse as regards the way in which the Romanian intelligence service gathers, keeps and uses information. The European Court has thus concluded that the holding and use by the secret service of information on the applicant's private life were not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of the Convention (violation of Article 8). The case also concerns an infringement of his right to an effective remedy before a national authority that could rule on his application to have the file amended or destroyed (violation of Article 13). Lastly, the case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the Court of Appeal’s failure to consider the claim for damages and costs (violation of Article 6§1).

    Individual measures: At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Romanian delegation indicated that there was no individual file on the applicant. Following the Court’s judgment, the document that was in the possession of the Romanian intelligence service, based on which the applicant was erroneously designated as a member of an extreme-right organisation, was modified in order to avoid any confusion (another person bearing the same name as the applicant was listed there). Written confirmation concerning this fact is awaited.

    General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in the official gazette. The attention of the delegation has been drawn to the fact that the European Court’s conclusions in this case meant that Law No. 14/1992 on the organisation and operation of the Romanian intelligence service would have to be amended. The delegation indicated, during the first examination of the case in October 2000, that a bill on the protection of data of a personal nature was being examined. A letter recalling in detail the afore mentioned measures was sent to the Representation of Romania on 06/11/2000. At the 775th bis (January 2002), 819th (December 2002) and 834th (April 2003) meetings, the Romanian delegation indicated that legislative reforms were in the process of being adopted. The Secretariat is in contact with the Romanian delegation in order to clarify the scope of the necessary execution measures.

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-924 28114 Dalban, judgment of 28/09/99 - Grand Chamber

    The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for criminal libel in 1994, under Article 206 of the Criminal Code, for having published articles in which he exposed a series of frauds allegedly committed by a senior official and a member of parliament. The European Court found a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of the fact that, although Article 207 of the Romanian Criminal Code admits the adduction of evidence supporting the truthfulness of the declaration at issue when it has been made in order to protect a legitimate interest, the Romanian courts had not allowed the applicant to prove the truth of his allegations but, inter alia, found it established that these were untrue since a non-indictment decision had been issued by the prosecutor’s office against the public official at issue concerning the same allegations (violation of Article 10).

    General measures: Since December 1999, the attention of the Romanian authorities has been drawn to the problems posed in particular by Section 206 of the Criminal Code regarding freedom of expression, and the question was raised of the state of advancement of the reforms envisaged in this field. In May 2002, certain provisions of the Criminal Code concerning defamation were modified by an emergency order, subject to parliamentary ratification. According to available information, these amendments would increase the severity of the penalties provided in defamation cases, without modifying the substantive provisions. In a report of December 2002 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, it was regretted that this draft reform did not fully respect the requirements of the Council of Europe and the opinion was expressed that it would rather had been advisable to cancel from the criminal code all provisions related to libel, insult and defamation. Subsequently, the Romanian delegation informed the Secretariat that new amendments were being prepared and that the draft criminal code will be examined by Council of Europe experts in 2003.

    According to the information available on the internet site of the Romanian Ministry of Justice, the new draft criminal code provides for the decriminalisation of insult and the possibility to use the defence of good faith in the case of libel. Also, prison sentences for libel are to be eliminated. The Secretariat is waiting for official information concerning the contents of this draft law and its transmission to the Council of Europe for comment.

    Furthermore, the Delegation has indicated that the Dalban judgment had been translated and sent out to Presidents of Courts of Appeal and that the case had been discussed in 1999 and 2000 at a seminar organised in by the Romanian Judges’ Association, a meeting of the Presidents of Courts of Appeal and a meeting of the Romanian Journalists’ Association. Information on the developments of the Romanian courts’ case-law as regards the criteria for holding a statement to be true is expected.

    H46-583 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01

    (rectification) – Grand Chamber118

    H46-925 29411 Anghelescu, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

    H46-784 35831 Bǎlǎnescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02119

    H46-567 33627 Bǎrǎgan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03120

    H46-785 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02121

    H46-568 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03122

    H46-781 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

    rectified on 09/07/02123

    H46-788 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02124

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-786 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H46-569 29769 Curuţiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03125

    H46-570 32936 Drǎgnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03126

    H46-787 32943 Fǎlcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02127

    H46-571 32977 Gǎvruş, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03128

    H46-572 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03129

    H46-573 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03130

    H46-574 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03131

    H46-783 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02132

    H46-575 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03133

    H46-576 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03134

    H46-789 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02135

    H46-577 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03136

    H46-578 33355 Popescu Nasta, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03137

    *H46-926 32265 Popovǎt, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 25/05/03

    H46-579 33631 Sǎvulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03138

    H46-580 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03139

    H46-782 32260 Surpǎceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

    final on 21/08/02140

    H46-581 32269 Tǎrbǎşanu, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03141

    H46-927 29407 Vasiliu, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02

    These cases concern the Supreme Court’s annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to property that had been previously nationalised. The Supreme Court intervened following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions. The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicants’ right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicants’ right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised courts’ jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1 in all the cases except Grigore and State and others). Finally, the European Court found that the Supreme Court’s decisions had violated the applicants’ right to respect for their possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation final court decisions that recognised the applicants’ property rights to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

    In the cases of Anghelescu, Gheorghiu, Golea, Popovăţ, Mateescu and Sǎvulescu, the domestic proceedings were still pending when the Court delivered its judgments.

    Sub-section 4.2

    In the Nagy case, the violation of the property right is also determined by the uncertainty flowing from the existence of two contradictory property titles to the apartment at issue. The State has obtained a property title based on the 1995 Supreme Court decision (annulling the previous final decision returning the apartment to the applicant) and obtained the right to note this title in the land register in February 1999. On the other hand, the applicant had bought the apartment from the state in 1975 (and is occupying it) and noted his right in the land register in March 1999.

    Individual measures: Concerning the Anghelescu case, the Secretariat indicated at the 810th meeting (October 2002) that measures should be taken to accelerate the proceedings aimed at revoking his title to property, still pending at national level. Information is expected on this matter.

    As far as the Nagy case is concerned, the Romanian authorities were asked at the 841st meeting (June 2003) to indicate what are the measures capable of solving the conflict between the contradictory property titles. The acceleration of the other national proceedings still pending would be desirable.

    General measures: By letter of 11/09/2003, the Romanian delegation informed the Secretariat that Article 330 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure had been repealed by an Emergency ordinance adopted by the Government and published in the Official Gazette on 28/06/2003. Information concerning the approval by the Parliament of this measure is awaited.

    - 1 case against Switzerland

    H46-928 26899 H.B., judgment of 05/04/01, final on 05/07/01

    This case concerns the role of the examining magistrate of the Canton of Soleure who ordered the applicant’s arrest and provisional detention, bearing in mind the possibility that this same magistrate could intervene on the prosecution side in subsequent criminal proceedings if the case were to be referred to a district criminal court. This being so, the European Court considered that the applicant was not brought before an “officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” (violation of Article 5§3).

    General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been disseminated, in particular to the Département de la justice et des constructions of the Canton of Soleure and to the Federal Court. It has been published in the periodical Jurisprudence des autorités administratives de la Confédération. The authorities of the Canton of Soleure have adopted a provisional measure, according to which the examining magistrate will no longer order provisional detention of suspects in proceedings that he or she is conducting, another judge deciding. Furthermore, a reform which would institute a tribunal cantonal de la détention and amend several cantonal provisions is being examined and could enter into force in 2005.

    - 135 cases against Turkey

    H46-931 34382 Denmark, judgment of 05/04/00- Friendly settlement

    The Danish Government complained of ill treatment suffered by Mr Kemal Koç, a Danish national, during his detention in Turkey from 8 to 16 August 1996. In addition, the Danish Government asked the Convention’s organs to examine whether the interrogation techniques allegedly applied to Mr Koç were applied in Turkey as a widespread practice.

    The Court took note of a friendly settlement reached between the parties according to which the respondent Government has agreed to pay the applicant Government an amount of 450 000 Danish crowns which includes legal expenses connected with the case. The amount has been paid.

    The Government of Denmark and the Government of Turkey made a joint statement, which appears in §21 of the judgment. The Government of Denmark indicated in particular that it would make a significant financial contribution to the Council of Europe’s project aimed at re-organising the curriculum of police training.

    This project started on 11/02/2002 with a pilot course for the “training of the trainers”. It has been extended until the end of 2003. Three follow-up courses should take place from 29 September to 11 November 2003.

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-932 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00

    This case concerns the deportation of the applicant to Iran, where, she maintained, she would have run the risk of being flogged or stoned to death, these being the penalties prescribed by Iranian law as punishment for adultery. Her asylum application was rejected by the police on the grounds that it had been submitted out of the 5-day time-limit as from her arrival in Turkey. However, she was later granted refugee status by the UNHCR. Seised by the applicant, the Administrative Court, which limited itself to the issue of the formal legality of the refusal because the application had been submitted out of time, nevertheless concluded that the decision of the police was not clearly unlawful and that its implementation would not have resulted for the applicant in damage which would have been impossible to compensate. The European Court considered that there would have been a real risk of the applicant being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if she had been returned to Iran (violation of article 3 if deportation order executed). The Court also decided that no effective remedy had been granted to the applicant: there was no assessment made by the national authorities of the risk the applicant claimed to run; the judicial control by the Council of State was too limited to constitute an effective remedy and that no possibility of suspending the implementation of the execution had existed (violation of Article 13).

    Individual measures: Following the judgment of the European Court, the applicant was granted a Turkish residence permit. She obtained a Canadian visa in September 2001.

    General measures: The regulations on asylum seekers were modified in 1999 so as to increase the five-day period in which an alien can lodge an application for political asylum to ten days from his or her legal or illegal - entry into Turkey. Moreover, the judgment of the European Court has been translated and published.

    Regarding the question of examination of the substance of all appeals - even those submitted out of time - against a measure of removal involving a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, the Turkish Delegation communicated in a letter dated 15/05/03 two judgments of the Council of State of January 2000 and March 2001 (in Turkish). It appears from these judgments that the consequence for the alien of applying after the 10-day period from his entry into Turkey is not his deportation; furthermore, before ordering a deportation, the competent authorities must examine the substance by evaluating whether the foreigner would be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment in the case of a deportation to his or her country of origin. It also appears from these judgments, that the courts respect their international commitments by interpreting Turkish law on this issue. Concerning the question of the possibility of suspending the implementation of the deportation order, the Turkish delegation has provided information according to which, following the Code of Administrative Proceedings (Law No. 2577), the administrative judge can be asked to suspend an administrative decision when it could result for the applicant in damage which could be impossible to compensate; an appeal is possible against a decision rejecting this demand. Finally, the Turkish authorities have confirmed that in this case no deportation order had been formally issued (§21 of the judgment).

    - 46 cases concerning action of the Turkish security forces

    CM/Inf(2003)12 Revised

    H54-814 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98142

    H46-827 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98143

    H46-933 22947+ Akkoç Nebahat, judgment of 10/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H54-934 21987 Aksoy, judgment of 18/12/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H46-596 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03144

    H46-935 32574 Algür, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

    H46-936 22279 Altay, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-937 25657 Avşar, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 27/03/00

    H54-938 23178 Aydin, judgment of 25/09/97, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H46-825 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98145

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-939 25659 Bilgin İrfan, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-823 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98146

    H46-806 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01147

    H46-940 23657 Çakici, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H32-941 22677 Çetin, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H46-942 25704 Çiçek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 05/09/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-793 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01148

    H46-943 20869 Dikme, judgment of 11/07/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-944 25801 Dulaş Zubeyde, judgment of 30/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-945 27602 Ekinci Ülkü, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

    H46-828 20764 Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H54-816 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98149

    H46-824 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98150

    H54-946 21593 Güleç, judgment of 27/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H46-947 22277 Ilhan Nasir, judgment of 27/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H54-813 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and

    ResDH(2002)98151

    H46-818 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98152

    H46-948 22492 Kiliç, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H54-815 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98153

    H54-949 23186 Menteş, Turhallı M. and S, and Uvat, judgment of 28/11/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)434

    H46-950 21594 Oğur, judgment of 20/05/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-951 31889 Orak Abdurrahman, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

    H46-609 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02154

    H46-820 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98155

    H46-826 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98156

    H46-952 31866 Satık and others, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H54-953 23184 Selçuk and Asker, judgment of 24/04/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H46-832 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02157

    H46-954 26129 Tanlı, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01, rectified on 28/04/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46-817 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98158

    H46-822 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98159

    H54-955 22496 Tekin, judgment of 09/06/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-819 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98160

    H46-956 32357 Veznedaroğlu Sevtap, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 18/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H54-957 22495 Yaşa, judgment of 02/09/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H32-821 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98161

    These cases concern violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, notably in respect of unjustified destruction of homes by the gendarmerie, disappearances, infliction of torture and ill-treatment during police custody and killings committed by members of the security forces. All the cases more specifically highlighted the general problem of the lack of effective domestic remedies capable of redressing violations of the Convention (violations of Article 13).

    Since the very beginning of the Committee’s examination of these cases, it has been noted that the violations found are due to a number of structural problems: general attitudes and practices of the security forces, their education and training system, the legal framework of their activities and, most importantly, serious shortcomings in establishing at the domestic level administrative, civil and criminal liability for abuses. Thus, the Committee called upon the Turkish authorities to rapidly adopt comprehensive measures remedying these shortcomings in order to comply with the Court’s judgments.

    On 09/06/1999, the Committee adopted Interim Resolution DH(99)434 in which it noted with satisfaction some progress in the adoption of such measures, while at the same time calling on Turkey rapidly to adopt further comprehensive measures to prevent new similar violations.

    On 10/07/2002, the Committee adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 which anew took stock of the progress in the execution of some 40 judgments concerning the action of the Turkish security forces.

    In conclusion of this Resolution the Committee:

      Welcomes Turkey's recent enhanced efforts which have resulted in the adoption of various important reforms necessary to comply with the above-mentioned judgments of the European Court;

      Calls upon the Turkish Government to focus its further efforts on the global reorganisation of the basic, in-service and management training of Police and Gendarmerie, building notably on the efforts deployed in the framework of the Council of Europe's Police training project, with a view to achieving, without delay, concrete and visible progress in the implementation of the major reforms which were found necessary;

      Urges Turkey to accelerate without delay the reform of its system of criminal prosecution for abuses by members of the security forces, in particular by abolishing all restrictions on the prosecutors' competence to conduct criminal investigations against State officials, by reforming the prosecutor's office and by establishing sufficiently deterring minimum prison sentences for persons found guilty of grave abuses such as torture and ill-treatment;

      Strongly encourages the Turkish authorities to pursue and develop, in particular in the context of the new Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative, short and long-term training strategies for judges and prosecutors on the Convention and the European Court's case-law, including wider dissemination of translated judgments to the domestic courts, rapid adoption and implementation of the legislation on the Turkish Academy of Justice and inclusion in its curricula of in-depth courses on the Convention;

      Calls upon the Turkish Government to continue to improve the protection of persons deprived of their liberty in the light of the recommendations of the Committee for the prevention of torture (CPT);

      Invites the Turkish authorities regularly to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the practical impact of the measures taken, notably by providing statistics demonstrating effective investigations into alleged abuses and adequate criminal accountability of members of the security forces;

      Decides to pursue the supervision of the execution of the present judgments until all necessary measures have been adopted and their effectiveness in preventing new similar violations has been established.

    The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this dossier at their 854th meeting (October 2003) with a view to assessing progress in the execution of all these judgments, in the light of the requests made in Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 and of the new information provided to date by the Turkish authorities.

    This information will be summarised in an update of the Memorandum that was prepared for the 834th meeting (April 2003) (see CM/Inf(2003)12 Revised).

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 47 friendly settlements cases and 1 striking-out concerning action of the security forces containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

    CM/Inf(2003)12 Revised

    H46-958 24940 Acar, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-959 31137 Adalı, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-960 32598 Akbay, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-961 37453 Akman, judgment of 26/06/01, final on 25/10/01 – Striking-out

    H46-602 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement162

    H46-962 24935 Avcı, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-963 28293 Aydın K., C. Aydin and S. Aydin and others, judgment of 10/07/01 –

    Friendly settlement

    H46-964 29289 Aydın Mehmet, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-965 24946 Boğ, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-966 24938 Boğa, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-967 24934 Değer, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-968 24990 Demir, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-969 22280 Demir Mahmut, judgment of 05/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-603 31845 Dilek Kemal, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement163

    H46-970 24939 Doğan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-971 31246 Ercan, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-972 26337 Erdoğan Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-973 30492 Erat and Sağlam, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-604 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement164

    H46-974 24945 Güngü Kemal, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-975 29864 H.K. and others, judgment of 14/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-976 30953 I.I., I.S., K.E., and A.O., judgment of 06/11/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-977 38588 Keçeci, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-978 38578 Kaplan Süleyman, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-979 31890 Kınay M. and Kınay R., judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-980 24944 Kızılgedik, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-605 28516 Macir, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-606 28504 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement165

    H46-981 33234 N.Ö, judgment of 17/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-982 31865 O.O. and S.M., judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-983 31136 Önder Yalçın, judgment of 25/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-984 24936 Orak Adnan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-985 27735 Oral and others, judgment of 28/03/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-986 31883 Özbey, judgment of 31/01/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-987 29856 Özcan Mehmet, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-988 37088 Özkur and Göksungur, judgment of 04/03/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-989 24942 Parlak, Aktürk and Tay, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-990 29359 Saki, judgment of 30/10/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-991 31154 Şen Filiyet, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-992 24991 Şenses, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-993 31153 Soğukpınar, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-994 36189 Yakar, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-995 31152 Yalçın Şaziment, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-996 37049 Yaman Mehmet, judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-997 22281 Yaşa Sıddık, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-998 32979 Yıldız Özgür, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-999 28308 Yıldız Zeki, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1000 27532 Z.Y., judgment of 09/04/02 - Friendly settlement

    These cases mainly concern alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8,13, 14,18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the period between October 1988 and November 1996 connected with the disappearance of applicants’ relatives and the destruction of properties during certain operations conducted by the security forces, the ill-treatment inflicted on applicants during police custody and their prolonged detention without being presented promptly before a judge.

    According to the friendly settlements, the Turkish Government, in addition to payment of just satisfaction, undertakes in particular “to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all the necessary measures” – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – to ensure that the right to life and the prohibition of such forms of ill-treatment are respected in the future, that all deprivations of liberty are fully recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. In some cases, the Government referred in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the Declaration agreed on in Application No. 34382/97 (Denmark against Turkey, see above) and reiterate its resolve to give effect to those commitments.

    General Measures: The general measures here at issue were summed up in Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 which was adopted at the 803rd meeting (July 2002). Following this interim resolution, the Turkish authorities adopted a number of general measures to comply with the judgments concerned. The Committee will resume consideration of all these measures at the present meeting in the context of the cases concerning the actions of security forces (see above).

- Cases concerning dissolution of political parties

    H46-597 25141 Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP), judgment of 10/12/02, final on 21/05/03166

    H46-1001 23885 Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP), judgment of 08/12/99 - Grand Chamber

    H54-1002 19392 United Communist party of Turkey and others, judgment of 30/01/98

    H54-1003 21237 Socialist Party and others, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)245

    H46-1004 22723 Yazar, Karataş, Aksoy and le Parti du travail du peuple (HEP), judgment of

    09/04/02

    CM/Inf(98)48)

    Addendum 4

    The cases concern the dissolution of the above-mentioned political parties by the Constitutional Court in 1991, 1992 and 1993, respectively. The United Communist Party and the ÖZDEP party were dissolved shortly after their creation, on the mere basis of their programmes. The Socialist Party was dissolved on account of certain statements made by its chairman, Mr Perinçek. The reasons advanced by the Constitutional Court covered the undermining of the territorial integrity and the unity of the nation by references to the Kurdish people or to Kurdish self-determination (breaches of the Constitution and of various Articles in the Law on Political Parties (LPP). Among those cited by the prosecutor, mention may be made of Articles 78, 81 and 101 b) of the LPP. HEP was dissolved in similar circumstances. In the United Communist Party case an additional ground was the title “communist”, banned in Article 96 (3) of the LPP. In the ÖZDEP case an additional ground was a perceived aim to abolish the secular nature of the state in violation of Article 89 of the LPP.

    The cases also concern the ensuing banning for life of the leaders of the parties from holding similar offices in any other political party.

    In all the cases, the Court found violations of the right to freedom of association (Article 11).

    The Socialist Party case also concerns the criminal conviction of Mr Perinçek, subsequent to the Court’s judgment, on account of the same statements as led to the party’s dissolution.

    Sub-section 4.2

    General measures: The judgments of the European Court have been published in Turkish in the Official Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice.

    The change of the Constitution in 1995 changed the permanent ban on political activities for members of dissolved parties to a 5-year ban and made it applicable only to party leaders.

    The necessity of a further reform of the LPP has been pointed out since May 1998. Such a reform should take away the automatic ban of a party under Article 96§3 of the Constitution on the mere ground that its title contains the word "communist" and abrogate the possibility of dissolving parties solely on the basis of non-violent political speech or programmes which respect the rules of democracy. The possibility to ensure the compatibility of Turkish law with the Convention through a change of case-law was also noted (see notably CM/Inf(98)48).

    Further amendments to the Constitution of relevance to the execution of the above-mentioned judgments entered into force on 17/10/2001. These amendments have among other things introduced a general principle of proportionality and the possibility to resort to less severe sanctions than dissolution of the party in case of violations of the authorised limits of political action, which however remain unchanged in Article 68 of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of amendments to the LPP were adopted on 26/03/2002 in order to ensure that it is in conformity with the Constitution.

    During the examination of these different amendments in the course of the 792nd meeting (April 2002), the improvements brought about were noted, but certain hesitations were expressed in view of the absence of any change of several key provisions. More detailed information on positions adopted may be found in Addendum 4. Following this exchange of views, the Deputies agreed to resume consideration of these cases at their 810th meeting (October 2002) in order to examine any clarifications which might have been made in the meantime through the case-law of Turkish courts, in particular by the Constitutional Court. At that meeting the Turkish Delegation informed the Committee that the Communist Party had been allowed to participate in the general elections, a fact which may be accepted as a change of practice under Article 96/3 of the Constitution. Further information on the effect of the recent constitutional and

    legislative amendments were however requested. Subsequently, The Turkish representation furnished information concerning the additional legislative measures taken in respect of the LPP (see Addendum 4 for details) which entered into force 11/01/2003. According to new amendments, the conditions for being a member of a political party have been eased: being convicted under Article 312 of the Penal Code is no longer grounds for a restriction regarding being a member of a political party. Some other restrictions were lifted. The provisions of the LPP (Articles 98,100,102 and 104) were amended so as to conform to the Constitutional amendments. Finally, the political parties were granted the right to appeal against requests of the Chief Public Prosecutor before the Constitutional Court.

    During the 834th meeting the Secretariat considered, instead of closing these cases as suggested by the delegation of Turkey, that it would be more appropriate to wait for a possible evolution of the case-law of the Constitutional Court as regards the effect given to the Convention and to the judgments of the European Court as well as to the other constitutional amendments, in order to adopt, in the light of this evolution, at a subsequent meeting, either an interim, or a final resolution. At the time of issuing the present document, the Secretariat had not yet received any further information.

    Individual measures: The bans on political activities imposed on the applicants following the dissolution of the Parties have all been lifted. The Committee of Ministers found that under former Article 53 (today Article 46§1) of the Convention, Turkey was under an obligation to erase the consequences of Mr Perinçek’s criminal conviction (see Interim Resolutions DH(99)245 and 529). Mr Perinçek was conditionally released after having served ¾ of his 14-month prison sentence and, following the application of amnesty legislation, he once again enjoys the civil and political rights which he lost as a result of his conviction, although on the condition that he does not “commit a further crime”. He has lodged a new complaint with the Court on account of this situation (Application No. 46669/99). This complaint was declared admissible by the Court on 26/02/2002. The Committee is awaiting the outcome of these proceedings.

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 25 cases concerning freedom of expression

    (Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106)

    CM/Inf(2003)43

    H46-792 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01167

    H46-1005 23462 Arslan, judgment of 08/07/99

    H32-1006 25658 Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolution DH(99)560 of 08/10/99

    H46-610 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99168

    H46-607 27214 C.S.Y., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03169

    H46-1007 23556 Ceylan, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-1008 28496 E.K., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-791 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00170

    H46-1009 25067+ Erdoğdu and Ince, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-1010 24919 Gerger, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-1011 27215+ Gökçeli Yaşar Kemal, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    H54-1012 22678 Inçal, judgment of 09/06/98

    H46-1014 23168 Karataş, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-1015 33179 Karataş Seher, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H46-1016 28493 Küçük Yalçın, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

    H46-1017 24246 Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-1018 22479 Öztürk, judgment of 28/09/99

    H46-1019 23500 Polat, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-830 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00171

    H46-1020 24122 Sürek II, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-1021 24762 Sürek IV, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-1022 23927+ Sürek and Özdemir, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46-829 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00172

    H46-1023 24914 Öztürk Ayşe, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

    H46-1024 29590 Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

    These cases all relate to unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular on account of their conviction by State Security Courts following the publication of articles and books or the preparation of messages addressed to a public audience. In the Özgür Gündem case, the Court also concluded that the search operation conducted in the applicant newspaper’s premises had not been necessary in a democratic society and that the respondent government had failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the applicant newspaper in the exercise of its freedom of expression. Furthermore, the case Öztürk Ayşe specifically concerns the seizure of a publication (violations of Article 10)173.

    Individual measures: since June 1998 it has been repeatedly stressed in the Committee that the applicants’ convictions found to be contrary to Article 10 must be erased from their criminal records and that their civil and political rights, if restricted as a result of the convictions, must be restored.

    On 23/07/2001, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 (see CM/Inf(2003)43), which, among other things, “urges the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to take ad hoc measures allowing the consequences of the applicants’ convictions contrary to the Convention in the above mentioned cases to be rapidly and fully erased”.

    Sub-section 4.2

    On 04/02/2003 a new law (No. 4793) entered into force allowing for the re-opening of domestic proceedings in all cases which have already been decided by the European Court and in all new cases which would henceforth be brought before the European Court. The provisions however exclude re-opening for all cases which were pending before the European Court at the date of entry into force of the law and had not yet been decided, as well as for cases resulting in friendly settlements.

    On 10/02/2003, Law No. 4809 on suspension of proceedings and sentences concerning crimes committed through the press entered into force. Under certain conditions, this law provides that convictions related to freedom of expression might be erased, including their consequences. Furthermore, on 19/07/2003, Law No. 4928 abrogated Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Act No. 3713.

    Updated information on the current situation of the applicants and on the concrete follow-up given to Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 have been regularly requested (see the information available in this respect in the table appended to document CM/Inf(2003)43).

    As regards the annulment of the convictions: According to the information available at the time of preparing these notes, in at least 7 cases (Mr Arslan; Mr Gerger, Mr Inçal, Mr Küçük; Mr Öztürk; Ms Öztürk Ayşe; Mr Polat) the criminal records of the applicants have been erased following procedures under Law No. 4809. Similar procedures are pending in respect of at least four other cases (Mr Ibrahim Aksoy; Mr Ceylan; Mr Ahmet Zeki Okçuoğlu; Mr H. Karataş). In the case of Mr Aslantaş, the authorities indicated that the applicant’s criminal record had been erased on 25/03/03, but by letter of 16/04/03 the applicant contested this information and indicated his intention to request a retrial under Law No. 4793. Five other applicants (Mr Arslan; Mr Ceylan; Ms E.K.; Mr Karataş; Mr Sürek) have also filed requests for retrial, following the entry into force of Law No. 4793. In the case of Mr Arslan, this request was dismissed on 10/03/03 on grounds that a new decision would not bring any benefit to the applicant. This decision was confirmed at appeal on 26/03/03.

    As regards the restoration of the applicants’ civil and political rights: According to the information available at the time of preparing these notes, at least 8 applicants are no longer subject to restrictions of their rights (Mr M.S. Okçuoğlu, Mr U. Erdoğdu, Mr S. Ince, Ms P. Şener, Mr K.T. Sürek, Mr Y. Özdemir, Ms Öztürk Ayşe, Mr Küçük). Information is expected about the situation of the other applicants, in particular as regards the outcome of proceedings initiated by some of them to this effect and the consequences, if any, of the above mentioned laws in this respect.

    General measures: the question has been raised, since 1998, of the necessity to adapt Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention in order to avoid further violations similar to those found. In particular, attention was drawn to the need to assess the proportionality of restrictions on freedom of expression in the light of the presence of an “incitement to violence”. Furthermore, since 1999, the Turkish authorities have been invited to introduce a general criterion of truth and public interest in the Anti-Terrorism Law and to amend or abrogate Article 6 of this law; to review minimum penalties in crimes related to freedom of expression; to adopt specific measures aimed at ensuring the protection of freedom of expression (see CM/Inf(2003)43 for details). At the 834th meeting (April 2003), in connection with the examination of the case of Ayse Öztürk, questions were raised concerning the reform of the press law under way.

    Awareness raising and training measures:

    As a preliminary measure, the Ministry of Justice has published the most important judgments against Turkey in Turkish, sending them out in their regular bulletin to judges and prosecutors and making some of them accessible through the Ministry of Justice website (<http://www.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/aihmk.htm>). Furthermore, at the 741st meeting (February 2001), the Representative of Turkey indicated that an information note would be sent to judges and public prosecutors in order to raise their awareness of the requirements of the Convention. A copy of this note has been requested. In June 2002 a Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative was launched in collaboration with the Turkish authorities, made up of three distinct projects: (i) the development and implementation of short and long-term strategies on the ECHR and the case-law for judges, prosecutors and other public officials; (ii) the creation and launch of a comprehensive campaign to increase awareness and understanding of human rights among the public at large; (iii) a review of certain draft and existing legislation to ensure its conformity with European standards. The implementation of these projects is currently under way.

    Sub-section 4.2

    Legislative measures: In March 2001, the Turkish authorities presented the National Programme containing information on the reforms planned for the “short term” and the “medium term” (respectively 2002 and 2003-2004). Subsequently, on 03/10/2001, a number of constitutional amendments, concerning inter alia the provisions on freedom of expression and information, were adopted and are directly applicable. Since then, a series of packages of laws have been adopted and entered into force respectively on 19/02/2002 (Law 4744); on 09/04/2002 (Law 4748); on 09/08/2002 (Law 4771), on 11/01/2003 (Law 4778), on 04/02/2003 (Law 4793), on 19/07/2003 (Law 4928) and on 07/08/2003 (Law 4963).

    These laws have in particular:

    - modified Article 159 of the Criminal Code on insult and derision of public bodies by reducing maximum and minimum sanctions and by making them applicable only if the courts consider that there was an “intention” to insult or deride;

    - modified Article 312 of the Criminal Code, on incitement to hatred, by limiting its scope to expression constituting an explicit threat to public order and by reducing its maximum penalties;

    - modified Article 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 3713 by specifying that propaganda on behalf of terrorist organisations will incur sanctions if carried out in a manner that encourages resorting to violence or other terrorist means;

    - abrogated Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 3713;

    - erased prison penalties from the Press law No. 5680 and introduced provisions prescribing the respect of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.

    Although these amendments are aimed at generally improving the situation of freedom of expression, they do not seem to solve all the problems raised by the Court’s judgments. Additional information has accordingly been requested on a number of points and the Turkish authorities were invited to clarify the expected impact of the reforms on freedom of expression in Turkey.

    By letters of 16/12/2002, 03/01/2003, 28/03/2003, 25/07/2003 and 15/09/2003, the Turkish authorities have provided examples of the case-law of the Court of Cassation and Security courts, concerning in particular the interpretation of the criterion of “threat to public order” in the application of Article 312 of the Criminal Code as revised in 2002 as well as the interpretation of the criterion of “intention” in the application of Article 159 of the Criminal Code as revised in 2002. These examples show that the Turkish courts are interpreting Article 312 and 159 of the Criminal Code in accordance with the amendments which resemble, to some extent, to those used by the Strasbourg Court and may thus prevent, at least as far as Article 312 is concerned, new violations of the Convention. The Turkish authorities expect that these changes and case-law developments will also affect the interpretation of other relevant articles, notably in the anti-terrorism law. Examples of such developments are expected.

    H46-1013 27692+ Karakoç and others, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

    (Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106)

    CM/Inf(2003)43

    This case concerns a disproportionate interference in the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of their conviction in 1994 under Article 8 of Anti-terrorism Law No. 3713 for having, in their capacity as representatives of trade unions and of the press, issued a press statement in 1993 denouncing the government’s alleged responsibility for extra-judicial killings in the South-East region. Following the amendment of the Anti-terrorism Law in 1995, the applicants were given a suspended sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment, which they had already partially served, and a fine. Mr Karakoç was also dismissed from his job without compensation because of his conviction (violations of Article 10).

    The case also concerns the lack of impartiality of the State Security Court in that the judges who convicted the applicants had already been implicated in the decision concerning their detention on remand and had justified such decision on the basis of a detailed reasoning on the applicants' guilt. The European Court found that this situation, as well as the presence of a military judge in the State Security Court who convicted the applicants, justified objectively the applicants' doubts regarding the impartiality of the Court (violation of Article 6§1).

    Sub-section 4.2

    Individual measures: In accordance with the Committee of Ministers' position on similar cases, the applicants' convictions and all their consequences should be erased (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106). In this perspective, the applicants may apply for the reopening of their proceedings before the domestic courts, as provided by Law No. 4793 which entered into force on 04/02/2003. Information is furthermore expected about the consequences for the applicants of the abrogation of Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Act No. 3713 in July 2003.

    General measures: As regards the violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the case is similar to the other above-mentioned Turkish cases of violations of freedom of expression. As regards the impartiality of State Security Courts, since 1999, military judges no longer sit in these courts (see Resolution DH(99)555 adopted in the case of Cıraklar). At the 834th meeting (April 2003), information was requested on the measures envisaged as regards the other aspects of the violation of Article 6§1 raised by the European Court.

    - 8 friendly settlements in cases against Turkey concerning freedom of expression and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

    (Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106)

    CM/Inf(2003)43

    H46-1025 32985 Altan, judgment of 14/05/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1026 27307 Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1027 37721 Erkanlı, judgment of 13/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1028 35076 Erol Ali, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1029 27209+ Kiliç Özcan, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1030 25753 Özler, judgment of 11/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-831 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement174

    H46-608 32455 Zarakolu, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    These cases all relate in particular to alleged unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression, on account of their conviction by State Security Courts following public speeches or the publication of articles, drawings and books (complaints under Article 10 and 6§1).

    The Court took note of the friendly settlements reached between the parties. The Turkish Government undertook to pay a sum of money to the applicants, to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in order to bring the Turkish law into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in the area of freedom of expression and to adopt the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106, adopted on 23/07/2001(appended to CM/Inf(2003)43), in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction. These cases are comparable with the “freedom of expression” cases against Turkey mentioned above.

    Individual Measures: information is expected on the current situation of the applicants as well as on the measures envisaged, in conformity with the undertakings included in the friendly settlements, in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction. The Turkish authorities indicated, by letter of 02/06/2003, that the applicant’s criminal records in the case Erkanli had been erased, as a result of the application of Law No. 4809 which (entered into force on 10/02/2003) on suspension of proceedings and sentences concerning crimes committed through the press which, under certain conditions, provides the possibility to erase convictions related to freedom of expression and their consequences.

    General Measures: see above (“freedom of expression” cases against Turkey).

    - 2 cases against Ukraine175

    H46-1031 39042 Kuznetsov, judgment of 29/04/03

    H46-1032 38812 Poltoratskiy, judgment of 29/04/03

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 20 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46-1033 28212 Benjamin and Wilson, judgment of 26/09/02, final on 26/12/02

    The case concerns the fact that the applicants, following sentence by courts to terms of discretionary life imprisonment, were unable to exercise their right to have their continued detention in hospital reviewed by a body empowered to examine the lawfulness of their detention since the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHR Tribunal) could only recommend but not order their release (violation of Article 5§4).

    Individual measures: The first applicant had been convicted of rape in 1983 and released by decision of the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the MHR Tribunal on 09/01/2001. The second applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery in 1977 and on 13/06/2000 (date of the last review by the MHR Tribunal) he was still in prison. Information about the applicant’s present situation has been requested.

    General measures: confirmation of publication of the judgment of the European Court was received on 17/04/2003; the Committee has enquired whether the United Kingdom were considering the possibility of giving the MHR Tribunal the power to release detainees if it so decided.

    H46-1034 38784 Morris, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

    The case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaint concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the court martial which judged him, on account of various structural problems (violation of Article 6§1).

    The case present similarities with the Findlay case (see Resolution DH(98)12) following which the Army Act 1996 was adopted, entering into force in April 1997. In the present case, the Court has questioned some of the new provisions included in this Act.

    General measures: the United Kingdom authorities have informed the Committee that the issue was before the House of Lords. They would examine whether, and if so what, measures might be envisaged only once the Lords had adopted a decision. The Committee has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field. Furthermore, information is still expected concerning the publication of the judgment of the European Court.

    H46-1035 35605 Kingsley, judgment of 28/05/02 - Grand Chamber

    The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in determining his civil rights and obligations, due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the Gaming Board which revoked the applicant’s licence to hold a management position in the gaming industry (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court found that the Panel of the Gaming Board had not presented the necessary appearance of impartiality notably due to some statements made against the applicant prior to the hearing, and that the subsequent judicial reviews of the Panel’s decision were too limited to rectify the shortcomings.

    Individual measures: Information has been supplied by the Government regarding whether the applicant could re-apply for a licence. This information is being examined.

    General measures: The United Kingdom authorities were also asked what measures they envisaged to deal with the fact that reviewing courts do not have full jurisdiction to quash decisions of the Gaming Board or to remit the case for a new decision by an impartial body (see § 32 of the judgment). The confirmation of publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the Gaming Board and to the courts concerned is awaited.

    Sub-section 4.2

    H46-1036 35765 A.D.T., judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

    The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life on account of his conviction for gross indecency in respect of homosexual acts between consenting adults which had taken place in private, at the applicant’s home (violation of Article 8).

    The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on 20/11/1996 and was conditionally discharged.

    Individual measures: In March 2003, the applicant’s representative informed the Secretariat that the applicant did not wish to pursue the adoption of individual measures.

    General measures: The Committee has been informed that the United Kingdom authorities, in particular the Sex Offences Unit of the Home Office, were currently considering what type of measures should be adopted in order to avoid similar violations to that found in the present case (in particular amendments to the Sex Offences Act). Reference regarding the publication of the judgment of the European Court has also been requested.

    H46-1039 39846 Brennan, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

    The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s defence rights due to the presence of a police officer during his first consultation with his solicitor in 1990, without any compelling reason for the imposition of this restriction. The applicant was thus deprived of effective legal advice (violation of Article 6§3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6§1). The European Court indicated that the consultation, potentially of great importance to the applicant’s defence at trial, was the first occasion for him to seek advice from his lawyer as to whether he should answer some particular questions by the police or risk inferences being drawn against him later in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (see § 61 of the judgment).

    The applicant’s lawyer was never permitted to be present at any of the applicant’s interviews by police (see §16 of the judgment).

    Individual measures: At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the United Kingdom delegation was requested to provide information about the possibility of re-opening of the domestic proceedings if this were requested by the applicant, under sections 9-12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Information in that respect is awaited.

    General measures: At the same meeting, it was indicated that the publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the competent police authorities would be useful. Information was provided by the Government, according to which, on 16/07/2003, the Home Office sent guidance to the competent police authorities drawing their attention to the Court’s conclusions (especially to §§ 58-62 of the Court’s judgment). The Home Office stressed that the presence of a police officer during the defendant’s consultations with his solicitor should be imposed only when one of the consequences set out in §8(4) of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 could take place (in particular: the suspect’s interference with evidence; physically injury to any person, alerting of a person suspected of having committed a serious offence, alerting of a person and thereby making the prevention of an act of terrorism difficult). Account should also be taken of the fact that if the suspect is initially co-operative and answers questions, or if he can be considered vulnerable, he may be in need of legal advice with uninhibited access to his solicitor.

    H46-1040 56547 P., C. and S., judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

    The case concerns measures taken by a local authority in the United Kingdom to protect the applicants’ second child from her mother, previously convicted in the United States, on the basis of medical expertise, of having ill-treated her first child. The European Court found that the applicants had not had effective access to a court and that the measures had been unfair in that the applicants had had no legal representation in proceedings brought by the local authority in applying for a care order (proceedings started on 02/02/1999) and an order freeing for adoption (proceedings started on 15/03/1999) (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court also found breaches in the applicants’ right to family life due to the removal of the baby from her mother at birth and to the fact that the above mentioned proceedings prevented the applicants from being involved in decisions to protect their family interests (violations of Article 8). The applicants’ daughter was finally given for adoption on 27/03/2000.

    Sub-section 4.2

    Individual measures: in the light of the violations found in this case, the Committee has asked whether the United Kingdom authorities are envisaging any measures.

    General measures: the United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee that the Adoption and Children Act 2002 received Royal Assent in November 2002. The Department of Health will ensure that the issues raised by this case are kept carefully in mind as part of the implementation of the Act, in particular in relation to the development of guidance to local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies. Confirmation of the publication of the judgment of the European Court and the dissemination to the authorities concerned are awaited.

    H46-800 46477 Edwards Paul and Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

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

    Individual measures: The United Kingdom authorities have informed the Committee that Mr and Ms Edwards have accepted the Minister’s offer of a further investigation into a number of complaints against the Prison Service. The investigation, which will be conducted by a senior investigating officer reporting to the Director General of the Prison Service, was expected to begin early in 2003 and prison staff will be requested to co-operate. The Committee has asked to be kept informed of developments.

    General measures: The United Kingdom authorities have informed the Committee that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all the authorities concerned and published in the European Human Rights Report (Sweet & Maxwell) at (2002) 35 EHRR 487.

    The Committee has requested information about any measures that the United Kingdom might envisage adopting, in particular in respect to changes of practice and procedures in the Prison Service. Clarifications have also been requested as to the remedies presently available, in particular for those cases to which the Human Rights’ Act is not applicable (mainly violations committed before the entry into force of the HRA).

    H46-1041 38719 D.P. and J.C, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03176

    H46-802 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber177

    H46-1042 28957 Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber

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

    Individual and/or general measures: On 11/07/2003 the Government of the United Kingdom announced the publication of a draft Gender Recognition Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Bill will allow transsexual people who have taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in the acquired gender to gain legal recognition in that gender. The Secretariat is examining the draft Bill.

    The Goodwin judgment was published in the European Human Rights Report (Sweet & Maxwell) at (2002) 35 EHRR 447.

    Sub-section 4.2

        - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

    H46-618 44808 Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03178

    H46-1044 42116 Somjee, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

    H46-1043 50034 Obasa, judgment of 16/01/03, final on 16/04/03

    The first case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (which started on February 1988 and ended on June 1998) of which the applicants complained of a period of unjustified delay from October 1991 to March 1994 (violation of Article 6§1).

    This case presents similarities with the Foley case (judgment of 22/10/2002) which appears in sub-section 6.2, following the publication of the judgment of the European Court.

    The two other cases concern the excessive length of several sets of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the Somjee case, there were three sets of proceedings lodged in 1988 and 1989 and ended in 1997 and 1998 (more than 7 and 8 years for each one). In the Obasa case the proceedings were instituted in December 1991 and completed in April 1999 (7 years and 4 months).

    General measures: Given the fact that in these cases a structural problem of administration of justice was revealed, (see §§ 54-56 of the Mitchell & Holloway judgment, §§ 17, 72-73 of the Somjee judgment and § 35 of the Obasa judgment), the Government was requested, at the 847th meeting (July 2003), to provide information about the measures envisaged in order to ensure a reasonable duration for proceedings.

    H46-1119 29392 Z. and others, judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber179

    H46-1120 33218 E. and others, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 10/01/03180

    - Action of the security forces in the United Kingdom

    H46-1045 43290 McShane, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

    H46-1046 28883 McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

    H46-1047 37715 Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

    H46-1048 24746 Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

    H46-1049 30054 Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

    CM/Inf(2003)4 Revised 2

    These cases concern the death of applicants’ next-of-kin during police detention or security forces operations. In this respect, the Court mainly found the following shortcomings in the proceedings for investigating the use of lethal force by police officers/ security forces (violations of Article 2): lack of independence of the investigating police officers from the security forces/police officers involved in the events; lack of public scrutiny and information to the victims’ families concerning the reasons for decisions not to prosecute any soldier / police officer; the inquest procedure did not allow for any verdict or findings which could play an effective role in securing a prosecution in respect of any criminal offence which might have been disclosed; the soldiers / police officers who shot the deceased could not be required to attend the inquest as witnesses; the non-disclosure of witness statements prior to the witnesses’ appearance at the inquest prejudiced the ability of the applicants to participate in the inquest and contributed to long adjournments in the proceedings; the inquest proceedings did not commence promptly and were not pursued with reasonable expedition.

    The McShane case also concerns the finding by the Court of a failure by the respondent state to comply with its obligations under Article 34, in that the police had – albeit unsuccessfully – brought disciplinary proceedings against the solicitor who represented the applicant in national proceedings for having disclosed certain witness statements to the applicant’s legal representatives before the European Court.

    Sub-section 4.2

    General measures: Representatives of the United Kingdom and the Secretariat have maintained contacts in order to discuss the Government’s preliminary position in respect of the measures that need to be adopted.

    The publication of the judgments of the European Court and dissemination to police officers / security officers and judicial authorities concerned are still to be confirmed. Copies of the judgments have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to all coroners in Northern Ireland.

    On 25/09/2002, consultations took place between the Secretariat and representatives of the United Kingdom authorities regarding the measures to be taken. On 07/10/2002, following these consultations, the United Kingdom authorities submitted to the Committee of Ministers a document containing a package of measures (either already adopted or for adoption) with a view to avoiding the repetition of the violations found in these cases. A preliminary examination of this information was made at the 810th meeting (October 2002). The main document was included in Addendum 4, volume 1 of the 819th meeting and the appendix (300 pages) to the document can be obtained from the Secretariat in the original language.

    The examination of this document and other relevant information was pursued at the 819th meeting (December 2002) at the close of which the Secretariat was requested to prepare a memorandum summarising the information available. Subsequently, additional information was received, notably from the applicants’ representatives and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The memorandum, including the additional information submitted, was distributed under the reference CM/Inf(2003)4.

    At the 827th meeting (February 2003), the Committee decided to resume consideration of the examination of the information contained in the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat at its 834th meeting (April 2003). Subsequently, the Secretariat received further information from the United Kingdom authorities. The information was included in a revised version of the Memorandum (CM/Inf(2003)4 Revised 2).

    At the 834th meeting (April 2003) several delegations took the floor to request information in respect of the questions raised in the memorandum. However, it was also agreed that it was important to wait for the outcome of the proceedings in pending litigation, notably in the Middleton case, before discussing further some of the issues covered in the memorandum.

    Subsequently, on 19/05/2003, the Secretariat received further information/comments from the United Kingdom authorities. The information was appended to Addendum 4, prepared for the 841st meeting (June 2003).

    At that meeting, the Deputies, after having discussed the information provided by the United Kingdom, decided to postpone the examination of the cases to its 854th meeting (October 2003) to enable the Secretariat to update the memorandum and, as appropriate, to include in it any further information on pending litigation, in particular in the Middleton case (see CM/Inf(2003)4 Revised 2).

    SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

    - 119 cases against Italy

    H46-252 39221+ Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

    Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151181

    Addendum 4

    The case concerns two violations of Article 8 of the Convention related, on the one hand, to the continued placement, since 1997, of the two children of the first applicant (mother) in the “Forteto” community, after they had been taken into public care and, on the other hand, to the authorities’ failure to maintain the opportunities of the mother and her children to re-establish family bonds, through the organisation of regular contact visits. The Court notably considered the fact that certain “Forteto” leaders with serious previous convictions notably for ill-treatment and sexual abuse of handicapped people placed in the community (§§32-34) could still play an active role in bringing up the children (§§201-208); the fact that the implementation of the Youth Court’s decisions had been deflected from their intended purpose of allowing visits between the mother and the children to take place as a result of the attitude of the social services (§§178-179 & 213) and of some of the leaders of “Il Forteto” (§211), who had delayed or hindered the implementation of such decisions (§209) and exercised a mounting influence on the children aimed at distancing them from their mother (§210); the doubt about who really has effective care of the children (§211); the insufficient level of control on the social services and the “Forteto” (§§179-181 & §§212-216); the risk of long-term integration of the children into the “Forteto”, which – in the Court’s opinion - runs contrary to the objectives of a temporary placement and of the superior interest of the children (§§215-216).

    Individual measures: on 30/10/2002, the Florence Court of Appeal decided that the issue of the temporary placement of the children in the “Forteto” community would be re-examined at the end of June 2003, in the light of a report to be presented by the social services before 05/06/2003 on developments of the relationship between the mother and her children. This re-examination should notably make it possible to assess whether the elements that had brought the European Court to find that the rights of the mother and of her children had been violated (see above) still exist and justify the transfer of the children elsewhere, as requested by the Public Prosecutor (see Addendum 4 which also contains the two Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH (2001)151 as well as the letter addressed to the Italian authorities on 08/07/2002). In connection with this decision, in May 2003 the applicant’s lawyer filed a complementary request to the Public Prosecutor, inviting the Court of Appeal to decide about the placement of the children before its expiry on 30/06/2003 and, in particular, to consider the possible placement of the children in an institution in Belgium, designated by the Belgian authorities. Two further requests were filed by the applicant respectively on 13/06/2003 to the Custody judge, aimed at dismissing the tutor of the children and to transfer them before 30/06/2003, and on 22/07/2003 to the Florence Youth Court contesting the competence of this tribunal to decide on the placement of the children and its decision to hold a hearing of the children on 30/07/2003. The outcome of these procedures is not known.

    Furthermore, the applicant sent the Secretariat a videotape of the monthly meeting in September 2002 in which the children indicate inter alia that, contrary to the Youth Court orders of July 2001, they are still sleeping separately, each of them sharing his bedroom with a “foster parent”. According to the children, there is no traditional “family” within the community, as marriages are organised only with a view to having the right to obtain the placement of children in the “family”.

    Sub-section 4.3

    As regards the contacts between the mother and the children, the Youth Court found, in December 2000, that the social services were still continuing to delay and hamper the implementation of its decisions to organise such visits. Therefore, after three short visits in March-April 2001 (interrupted when Ms Scozzari moved to Belgium), on 17/07/2001 the Youth Court decided that a regular programme of visits should be set up, with the participation of an official of the social services, appointed among those having never previously intervened in the procedure. Following this decision, monthly visits have been taking place since December 2001, also thanks to the Belgian authorities’ undertaking to pay the travel expenses for Ms Scozzari and a qualified assistant. The question has been raised – both in the course of the discussions within the Committee of Ministers and before the domestic courts – (see CM/Inf(2002)20) of whether such visits are organised in such a way to effectively allow a resumption of family relations, in conformity with the Youth Court’s decision and the Strasbourg Court’s judgment. By decision of 30/10/2002, the Florence Court of Appeal decided therefore that there should henceforth be three visits per month. The reports drawn up in April and May 2003 by the Italian and Belgian social services about the contact visits indicate some improvements in the relationship between the first applicant and the children.

    General measures: The judgment of the European Court was translated and published in the legal review Rivista Internazionale dei Diritti dell’Uomo, No. 3/2000, p. 1015-1046.

    With respect to awareness-raising measures, in May 2001, the Superior Judicial Council asked for the organisation of seminars, both at national and local level, to train magistrates of Youth Courts on the requirements of the Convention, as interpreted in the Strasbourg case-law in the field of family law. This project has not been followed up yet. Further measures aimed at raising the awareness of the social services of the same issues are being considered.

    As regards the existence of an effective and regular supervision mechanism of the placement of children, in October 2002, the Italian Delegation informed the Secretariat of the adoption of a new law (No. 149/01) in 2001, amending and making more precise certain provisions on adoption and placement of children, including as regards controls. According to the Italian delegation this law also introduces regular control over institutions such as the “Forteto”. However in January 2003, the United Nations Committee on the rights of the child noted with concern that this law is not widely implemented in practice, that the period of stay under placement can be very long and that contact with the family is not always guaranteed. It particularly recommended Italy to ensure regular inspections of institutions by independent bodies and regular periodic reviews of placements. A draft law (No. 2517/C) aimed at centralising jurisdiction over issues concerning minors has also been under examination by Parliament since April 2002.

    As regards the effectiveness of existing controls and the alleged links existing between the authorities in charge of children’s placements and the “Forteto” community, in June 2002 the Superior Judicial Council decided that the involvement in the co-operative community « Il Forteto » of two members of the Youth Court did not raise any incompatibility issue, as long as these persons had not taken part in the decisions concerning the placement of the applicant’s children in the « Forteto ».

    As regards the question raised of how it happened that people convicted of sexual abuse and ill-treatment were still managing a community entrusted with the care of children, the Italian Delegation explained that these people had been granted a stay of execution; in any event, any ban would no longer be applicable, as the convictions occurred a long time ago. The Secretariat has inquired how situations such as this can be prevented in the future (see for details CM/Inf(2001)12, CM/Del/Act(2001)741).

    Sub-section 4.3

        - 118 Italian cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings beforere administrative courts182

        (see also, for more detailed information, CM/Inf(99)37, CM/Inf(2000)40, CM/Inf(2000)40 Addendum, CM/Inf(2001)37 ; Interim Resolutions DH(99)436 and ResDH(2000)135)

    Addendum 4

    H46-433 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46-658 56226 Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1050 29171 Abbate Giovani, Interim Resolution DH(97)367

    H54-1051 25587 Abenavoli, judgment of 02/09/97

    H46-647 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H32-1052 26863 Almanno, Interim Resolution DH(96)611

    H46-648 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H32-1053 25579 B.Q., Interim Resolution DH(96)213

    H32-1054 26864 Bacci Roberto Maria, Interim Resolution DH(96)612

    H32-1055 25585 Bagnoli and Mazzone G., A. and M., Interim Resolution DH(96)214

    H32-1056 34878 Barcellona, Interim Resolution DH(99)202

    H32-1057 35343 Bertozzi, Vorrasi, Ciarmoli and Forgione, Interim Resolution DH(99)642

    H32-1058 27189 Bevilacqua, Interim Resolution DH(97)524

    H46-434 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

    H46-435 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46-682 44341 Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H46-683 44347 Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H32-1059 19977 Carriero, Interim Resolution DH(96)26

    H32-1060 31628 Catania, Interim Resolution DH(99)414

    H32-1061 25576 Cavaliero s.n.c., Interim Resolution DH(96)215

    H32-1062 34882 Cecamore, Interim Resolution DH(99)203

    H46-1063 44332 Cecchini, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

    H46-684 44350 Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H46-659 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1064 29170 Cerruto, Interim Resolution DH(97)368

    H32-1065 29125 Chierici B. and E., Interim Resolution DH(97)331

    H46-649 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-660 56206 Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-1066 41811 Comitini, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-661 56208 Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-662 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1067 27494 Corona Vincenzo, Interim Resolution DH(97)020

    H32-1068 25577 Cosma, Interim Resolution DH(96)216

    H32-1069 25588 D.M. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)217

    H46-663 56224 D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1070 27996+ D'Amico and Altobelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)130

    H46-664 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H54-1071 25574 De Santa, judgment of 02/09/97

    H32-1072 20359 Della Sala Raffaele, Interim Resolution DH(96)614

    H46-685 44337 Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H46-665 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    Sub-section 4.3

    H32-1073 14147+ Di Bonaventura

    H46-666 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-667 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-651 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-652 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-668 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-687 44349 Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H32-1074 30600 G. D.P., Interim Resolution DH(97)525

    H32-1075 25584 G.L.C., Interim Resolution DH(96)218

    H32-1076 31622 G.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)654

    H46-650 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-656 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

    H46-686 44340 Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H46-669 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1077 25580 Giorgini, Interim Resolution DH(96)219

    H54-1078 25586 Lapalorcia, judgment of 02/09/97

    H32-1079 25581 Latini, Interim Resolution DH(96)220

    H46-681 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46-670 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-671 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1080 15080 Magnaghi, Interim Resolution DH(96)379

    H32-1081 27994+ Manzini and Benet, Interim Resolution DH(97)129

    H46-653 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-654 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-672 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1082 38149 Mazzone G. and E. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)306

    H32-1083 38150 Mazzone G. and E. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)307

    H46-1084 33804 Mennitto, judgment of 05/10/00

    H32-1085 25589 Mentastro, Interim Resolution DH(96)221

    H46-1086 38594 Mereu and S. Maria Navarrese, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

    H46-1087 44338 Miele, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

    H46-437 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H32-1088 17814 Mori Puddu, Interim Resolution DH(97)177

    H46-438 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H32-1089 38526 Murgo M, O, and S. and Giannone, Interim Resolution DH(99)415

    H32-1090 30322 Nani, Interim Resolution DH(98)193

    H46-673 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-688 44348 Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H54-1091 25839 Nicodemo, judgment of 02/09/97

    H46-1092 44335 O., judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

    H32-1093 18908 P.P. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)111

    H46-689 44351 Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H32-1094 35950+ Paglietti and 126 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)99

    H46-440 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H32-1095 15800+ Perego and Romanet

    H46-674 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-675 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1096 34880 Polto Miranda, Interim Resolution DH(99)204

    H46-676 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-442 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

    H32-1097 27493 Recinelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)21

    H32-1098 27999+ Recinelli and Corona, Interim Resolution DH(97)132

    Sub-section 4.3

    H32-1099 27997 Ridolfi, Interim Resolution DH(97)131

    H46-655 44345 Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46-677 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-678 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1100 26865+ Rubbo and others, Interim Resolution DH(96)613

    H32-1101 34881 Ruocco, Interim Resolution DH(99)643

    H32-644 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673

    H32-1102 25582 Sansoni, Interim Resolution DH(96)222

    H32-1103 31625 Santoro Claudio, Interim Resolution DH(97)655

    H46-679 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1104 29672 Scopelliti II, Interim Resolution DH(97)469

    H32-1105 27484+ Serino and others, Interim Resolution DH(97)133

    H32-1106 25450 Spera Michele, Interim Resolution DH(97)372

    H46-680 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H32-1107 34283 Stampacchia, Interim Resolution DH(98)272

    H32-1108 25583 Stracuzzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)241

    H32-1109 25578 Turrina and Scattolini, Interim Resolution DH(96)223

    H32-1110 31620 U. P., Interim Resolution DH(97)656

    H32-1111 38152 Ullo, Interim Resolution DH(99)308

    H46-657 44333 V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

    H46-1112 44346 Venturini Alberto II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H32-1113 29301 Vitali II, Interim Resolution DH(97)332

    H32-1114 29302 Vitali III, Interim Resolution DH(97)333

    H32-1115 39170 Zappalà, Interim Resolution DH(99)523

    H46-443 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

    In all the 118 cases against Italy listed above, violations of Article 6§1 were found on account of the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts. 6 similar cases concluded by friendly settlements have been examined by the Committee of Ministers up to now.

    General measures: The necessity to adopt general measures aimed at solving the structural problem of the excessive length of administrative proceedings in Italy has been raised since 1997 (cf. judgments in the cases of Abenavoli and De Santa of 02/09/1997). In 1999, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution DH (1999) 436, in which it took note of the first measures envisaged or implemented by the Italian authorities, it invited them to pursue their efforts in this respect and decided to resume its examination one year later. A first assessment was made in October 2000 and was presented in Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)135. In this resolution, the Committee of Ministers decided among other things “to resume its consideration of the progress made, at least at yearly intervals, on the basis of a comprehensive report to be presented each year by the Italian authorities”.

    The first annual report provided by the Italian authorities (covering mainly the year 2000 and issued as public document CM/Inf(2001)37) was examined by the Committee at its 764th, 775th and 803rd meetings (October 2001, February and July 2002). The Committee concluded that the data was relatively encouraging as regards the overall reform of administrative proceedings (see the press releases issued after the above-mentioned meetings and reproduced in Addendum 4). Additional information was requested by the Director General of Human Rights in a letter of 24/01/2002.

    In December 2002 and February 2003, the Committee of Ministers examined the second annual report provided by the Italian authorities, which however did not contain any information on the situation of administrative justice after 2000. Information was therefore requested in a letter sent to the Italian authorities by the Director General of Human Rights on 10/12/2002.

    Sub-section 4.3

    The measures enacted so far consist mainly of:

    - A different division of jurisdiction between civil and administrative courts (Legislative Decree 80/1998), in particular transferring to civil courts jurisdiction over proceedings concerning public employment and extending the administrative courts’ jurisdiction over proceedings concerning public services and town planning, including the competence to award compensation for damages rather than referring this matter to civil jurisdictions;

    - A reform aimed at streamlining administrative procedure (Law 205/2000);

    - The adoption of laws aimed at accelerating administrative procedures in specific fields (Law 135/1997 concerning public works; Law 249/1997 concerning measures taken by the Telecommunications supervisory authority);

    - The accelerated treatment of extraordinary appeals to the President of the Republic, which are an alternative to the judicial procedure, so as not to exceed 3 months;

    - The setting-up of a computerisation plan for administrative courts, to be implemented before the end of 2002.

    Further measures were being considered to reduce the backlog of cases.

    Information is expected in particular on:

    - the effects of the abovementioned reforms enacted so far in this field in terms of accelerating administrative proceedings;

    - updating statistical data concerning the average length of administrative proceedings, including the extraordinary appeal to the President of the Republic, as well as the present number of judges ;

    - implementation of the three-year computerisation programme (2000-2002);

    - the absorption of the backlog of old cases.

    By letter dated 10/06/2003, the Italian authorities indicated that in 2002 the number of proceedings brought to an end (138 689) had exceeded the number of new applications filed (74 236) and that the global number of proceedings pending before the regional administrative courts had thus decreased from 920 000 to 820 000. The Italian authorities furthermore indicated that they expected that the effectiveness of these jurisdictions would further improve after completion of the implementation of the computerisation programme and of the staff recruitments scheduled.

    Individual measures: 44 out of these 118 cases were indicated as still pending at domestic level at the time the violation was found by the European Court of Human Rights. The Italian authorities have been invited to provide information on these cases, and to adopt appropriate measures in order to speed up these proceedings.

    - 3 cases against Turkey

    H54-790 15318 Loizidou, judgments of 18/12/96 (merits) and 28/07/98 (just satisfaction) – Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105 and ResDH(2001)80183

    Addendum 4

    At the present stage of the examination of the case the Deputies have decided to concentrate on the question of payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the last-mentioned judgment on account of the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of certain properties located in the northern part of Cyprus (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Court specified that payment was to take place within 3 months, i.e. before 28/10/1998.

    As Turkey did not pay the just satisfaction awarded, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the Icelandic Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 22/06/1999 wrote to his Turkish counterpart expressing the Committee’s concern regarding the failure to execute the judgment.

    Payment still not having taken place, the Committee adopted, on 06/10/1999, Interim Resolution DH(99)680, strongly urging Turkey to review its position and to pay the just satisfaction awarded. As payment still remained outstanding, the Chairman of the Committee, the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote a new letter on 04/04/2000 to his Turkish counterpart reiterating the Committee’s expectation that Turkey ensure payment in the near future.

    Sub-section 4.3

    The reply of the Turkish Ministers of Foreign Affairs indicated that Turkey did not consider itself to have either the competence or the jurisdiction to execute the Court’s judgment.

    On 12/07/2000, the Deputies, in response, adopted a new Interim Resolution DH(2000)105, declaring that the refusal of Turkey to execute the judgment of the Court demonstrates a manifest disregard for its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe and insisted strongly, in view of the gravity of the matter, that Turkey comply fully and without any further delay with the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment of 28/07/1998.

    At the 749th meeting (April 2001) the Turkish Delegation presented a payment proposal subjected, however, to conditions deemed unacceptable by the other delegations.

    In the continued absence of payment, the Committee adopted on 26/06/2001 a new Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)80 in which it recalled its previous Interim Resolutions and stated that:

      “Very deeply deploring the fact that, to date, Turkey has still not complied with its obligations under this judgment;

      Stressing that every member State of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

      Stressing that acceptance of the Convention, including the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the binding nature of its judgments, has become a requirement for membership of the organisation;

      Stressing that the Convention is a system for the collective enforcement of the rights protected therein,

      Declares the Committee’s resolve to ensure, with all means available to the organization, Turkey’s compliance with its obligations under this judgment,

      Calls upon the authorities of the member States to take such action as they deem appropriate to this end.”

    When the Deputies examined the matter at their 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Turkish Delegation reiterated the proposal made at the 749th meeting. Recalling that the conditions attaching to this proposal were unacceptable, several delegations presented proposals in order to make possible progress on the payment question.

    At the 792nd meeting (April 2002), different proposals regarding payment of the sums awarded were discussed. The proposals examined were mainly based on the idea of a payment to the Council of Europe, which should forward the sums, including default interest, to the applicant. The Delegations of Greece and Cyprus objected to such a payment method as it would not correspond to the Court’s judgment, which ordered payment to the applicant. Several delegations asked Turkey to provide further clarifications as to the exact content of its own payment proposal.

    The Chairman also presented to the Deputies a letter from the applicant in which she expressed her frustration and anguish about Turkey’s unwillingness to comply with the judgment and asked to be authorised to address the Committee in person at a forthcoming meeting. A short discussion followed indicating that the Deputies were not inclined to grant the request. A negative reply has subsequently been sent by the Chair to the applicant.

    For procedural reasons, the case could not be examined at the 796th meeting (May 2002) and the examination was postponed to the 798th DH meeting (June 2002). The Chairman indicated that he would in the meantime continue his consultations with interested delegations. At the 798th (June 2002) and 803rd (July 2002), 810th (October 2002), 819th (December 2002) and 827th meeting (February 2003) meetings no information regarding the payment was available. At the last-mentioned 827th meeting, considerable concern was expressed regarding this situation and it was decided to resume consideration of the case at the 832nd meeting (19 March 2003), also bearing in mind the fact that the Committee of Ministers intended adopting its reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1576 (2002) on the execution of Court judgments by Turkey in time for the Assembly’s next part-Session (31 March - 4 April 2003).

    At the 832nd meeting (19 March 2003), a declaration made by the European Union concerning this case received broad support from delegations. At the same meeting, the Turkish Delegation made a statement. These statements are reproduced in Addendum 4.

    Sub-section 4.3

    Following a comprehensive debate, the Deputies agreed to reply to Recommendation 1576 that the Turkish authorities had indicated at recent Committee of Ministers’ meetings their determination to comply with the Court’s judgment of 28 July 1998 and that it expected to receive shortly information on concrete steps to this effect. At the 834th meeting (9-10 April 2003) Delegations insisted on the importance of the Turkish authorities providing for the 841st meeting (3-4 June 2003) a clear, concrete and positive proposal, in line with the judgment, concerning the payment of the just satisfaction.

    Recalling member states’ collective responsibility, the Chairman interpreted the outcome of the debate of the 834th meeting as a unanimous call by delegations that Turkey should make a clear, concrete and positive proposal, in line with the judgment, concerning payment of the just satisfaction for the 841st meeting in June. This proposal should be submitted in time to be considered by delegations and by the Secretariat before the meeting. The Turkish delegation had taken careful note of what had been said and undertaken to report it to its authorities.

    The Secretariat was furthermore invited to begin work, if appropriate depending on the content of the information to be supplied by the Turkish Delegation and in time for the 841st meeting, on drafting a possible fourth interim resolution which would renew the Committee’s insistence on payment and indicate the measures contemplated in case of non-payment.

    The Chairman also noted the proposal made by certain delegations to accept, if necessary, a method of payment along the lines of that proposed earlier by Turkey. These delegations invited the Turkish authorities to restate this proposal, but without the elements which had been found unacceptable by the Committee.

    He reminded Turkey that in all objectivity this case had remained on the Committee of Ministers’ agenda much too long and insisted on the importance and urgency of taking effective action.

    At the 841st meeting the Representative of Turkey confirmed his authorities commitment to close the Loizidou case but asked for more time for his authorities to give effect to their proposals concerning the payment of the just satisfaction in this case. In response to a question from a delegation, he said that the extra time required would not go beyond October 2003 at the latest. Summing up the debate the Chairman noted that several delegations had stated that they interpreted this answer as meaning that at the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) the Deputies would be called upon to examine a draft resolution closing the examination of the payment question.

    Noting that the Representative of Turkey had not been in a position to give a clear confirmation of this interpretation at the present meeting, it was decided to resume consideration of the case at the 844th meeting (19 June 2003).

    At the 844th meeting the representative of Turkey stated that his authorities had “initiated the measures necessary to enable the Committee to take note of payment of the just satisfaction award and approve a draft final resolution at the DH meeting on 7 and 8 October.”

    H46-1116 25781 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

    CM/Inf(2003)14 Revised 3

    The case relates to the situation that has existed in northern Cyprus since the conduct of military operations there by Turkey in July and August 1974 and the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus. The European Court of Human Rights held that the matters complained of by Cyprus in its application entailed Turkey’s responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The Court held that there had been the following 14 violations of the Convention:

    Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

    - a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;

    - a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in Turkish custody at the time of their disappearance;

    Sub-section 4.3

    - a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in that the silence of the Turkish authorities in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

    Home and property of displaced persons

    - a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) concerning the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus;

    - a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights;

    - a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

    Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Karpas region of northern Cyprus

    - a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;

    - a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship;

    - a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised;

    - a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them;

    - a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment;

    - a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home;

    - a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities, as a matter of practice, with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

    Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus

    - a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.

    The Court also decided, unanimously, that the question of the possible application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision and adjourned consideration thereof.

    The Deputies examined this case for the first time at their 760th meeting (July 2001) (see the records of the 760th meeting).

    During the second examination of the case at the 764th meeting (October 2001) delegations strongly supported the proposal made by the Delegation of Liechtenstein that the Committee should follow the approach already proposed by the Director General of human rights at the 760th meeting, that is, identifying specific categories of violations according to the complexity of the execution measures required:

    - the question of missing persons,

    - the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus,

    - the rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus,

    - the question of the homes and property of displaced persons.

    Sub-section 4.3

    The Liechtenstein Delegation proposed that Delegations concentrate on some of the violations presented under the heading “Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus” specifically in the Karpas region, as well as the problem of the powers of the military courts presented under heading “Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus”. As indicated by the Chairman in his summing-up, the procedure adopted for the examination of this case should not prevent the Deputies from pursuing in parallel an examination of the other issues raised in the Court’s Judgment.

    At the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Delegation of Turkey stated that it was in agreement with the approach suggested at the 764th meeting.

    At the 792nd meeting, it was noted that a large number of Delegations considered that the question of missing persons should be examined as a matter of priority. At the same meeting the Delegation of Turkey gave a certain amount of information which was distributed at its request to all Delegations. The Delegation of Turkey particularly indicated that the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts no longer took place: judges who sit on courts which try civilians are chosen from amongst civilian judges by an independent body whose members themselves are civilians.

    At the 798th meeting, the discussions focused in particular on the situation of missing persons and the role played by the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP). Whilst the Turkish Delegation underlined the importance of the CMP, the contribution of Turkey to the work of the CMP and the necessity of reactivating it, several other delegations referred to the text of the Court’s judgment. In fact, in its judgment, the Court considers “that the respondent State’s procedural obligation at issue cannot be discharged through its contribution to the investigatory work of the CMP … (and) it notes that, although the CMP’s procedures are undoubtedly useful for the humanitarian purpose for which they were established, they are not of themselves sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2 of the Convention, especially in view of the narrow scope of that body’s investigations”.

    At the 810th meeting (October 2002) the Greek Delegation asked that special attention be given to the “living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus” at the 819th meeting.

    At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Committee decided to postpone the examination of the case to the 827th meeting (February 2003).

    At the 827th meeting, the Committee requested that a Memorandum be prepared by the Secretariat for discussion at the 834th meeting (09-10/04/2003) summarising the information available so far and indicating those areas where information is still awaited. The Memorandum was issued under the reference CM/Inf(2003)14.

    At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Deputies resumed their discussions on the questions of "missing persons" and of the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus and new information was submitted and discussed on the Military Court in particular.

    Subsequently, on 28 May 2003, the Director General of Human Rights addressed a letter to the Turkish authorities inviting them to forward “certain further clarifications and/or additional information” in respect of some outstanding issues under item 3 of the Memorandum (legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts).

    At the 841st meeting (June 2003), the discussions focused in particular on the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus. The Turkish Representative requested that item 3 (legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts) be examined at the 854th meeting (October 2003) in order to allow his authorities to submit the additional information requested by the Director General of Human Rights in his letter of 28 May 2003. The Chairman, summing up the discussion, stated that “the debates should be structured in a more focused way on the basis of the categories of violations identified beforehand by the Committee of Ministers, indicating in advance the category or categories selected for the meeting. Accordingly, at the 847th meeting (July 2003), discussions would focus on the living conditions of Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas region of northern Cyprus. At the 854th meeting (October 2003), all four categories would be on the agenda but the Chairman intended to focus in particular on the question of the military courts and of missing persons. He also insisted on the importance of receiving relevant information in writing and in advance of the meeting”.

    Sub-section 4.3

    The Delegations concerned were invited by the Chairman to furnish copies of their interventions together with any other relevant additional information, in particular on the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus (discussed at length at the meeting) to the Secretariat in order to allow the latter to update the Memorandum CM/Inf(2003)14.

    On 27/06/2003, the Secretariat received the text of the intervention of the Representative of Turkey made at the 841st meeting together with additional information in respect of the living conditions of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus.

    At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the discussions focused in particular on the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus.

    The interventions of the Turkish and Cypriot delegations were received by the Secretariat shortly afterwards.

    Furthermore, the Turkish authorities submitted additional information to the Secretariat by letters of 8 and 12 September 2003.

    The revised Memorandum (CM/Inf(2003)14 Revised 3) takes into account the information received.

    *H46-1117 26308 Institut de Prêtres français and others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement

    The case concerns a Turkish judicial decision of 1993 annulling the applicant Institute’s property entitlement to a plot of land on the grounds that, by letting part of this land to a private company, the applicant Institute was no longer eligible for special treatment as a non-profit body (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9). The parties concluded a friendly settlement according to which the Government undertook the following obligations:

    - The Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations recognize the right to usufruct to the benefit of the priests representing the applicant Institute. This right to usufruct shall comprise the full use and enjoyment of the land and the buildings thereon and the right to rent the land for profit-making purposes in order to meet its needs;

    - The two above-mentioned state authorities agree to undertake the formalities necessary to register their respective declarations in the land register with a view to renewing the life tenancy in favour of the priests who will replace the current usufructuary;

    - The Directorate General of Foundations waives its claim to USD 41,670 owed by the applicant Institute in rent collected over the five years since its property title was annulled.

    The necessity of urgent compliance with these obligations has been stressed in the Committee of Ministers at each of its DH meetings since October 2001 and the Turkish authorities have been invited to take the necessary measures without further delay. In 2002, the Turkish Delegation indicated on numerous occasions that the above-mentioned problems were going to be solved, notably through a Decree by the Prime Minister and that the competent national authorities were engaged in negotiations with the applicant Institute in order to establish the division of rent between the State and the applicants.

    As no tangible result has been achieved, the Chairman-in-office of the Committee of Ministers sent a letter, dated 06/11/2002, to her Turkish counterpart expressing the Committee’s concern at the non-execution of the friendly settlement and requesting a rapid solution to the problem. By letter of 29/11/2002, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs conveyed the Committee's concerns to the Prime Minister asking him to instruct the competent authorities urgently to implement the friendly settlement.

    During the examination of the case at the 819th meeting (December, 2002), the adoption of an Interim Resolution was suggested if no concrete and visible progress was achieved by February 2003. At the 827th meeting (11-12 February 2003) the Committee was informed that the conditions of the usufruct had finally been settled and would soon be formally approved and registered by the Council of Ministers.

    In April 2003 however, the applicants' representative indicated to the Secretariat that the conditions of usufruct were still waiting for the approval by the Minister of Finance and by the Council of State and that the time-frame for their final adoption and registration by the Council of Ministers therefore was very uncertain. Subsequently, the Secretariat was informed that the approval of the settlement by the Council of State was even not guaranteed.

    Sub-section 4.3

    Following a decision adopted at the 841st meeting (June 2003), as no further progress was reported by the Turkish authorities, the Chairman of the Committee accordingly sent a new letter, dated 17/06/2003, to Mr Gül, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey.

    As no reply was received from the Turkish authorities at the 847th meeting (July 2003), the Deputies decided to resume the examination of the case at the 850th meeting (September 2003).

    By letter of 01/08/2003 to the President of the Committee of Ministers, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, recalling the difficulties encountered, underlined that they were currently searching for ways to grant the right to usufruct to the priests in charge of the Institute and that the execution of the friendly settlement was imminent. This letter was circulated at the 850th meeting. Under these circumstances, the Deputies invited the Secretariat to prepare a draft interim resolution urging the Turkish authorities to pursue their efforts for a speedy solution of this case, with a view to its adoption at the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) should the case not be settled by then.

    - 1 case against Ukraine

    H46-1118 48553 Sovtransavto Holding, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 06/11/02

    Addendum 4

    The case concerns the failure to respect the applicant company’s right to a fair trial before an impartial and independent tribunal in respect of certain proceedings it conducted between 1997 and 2002 before the Ukrainian courts with a view to establishing the unlawfulness of domestic decisions which resulted in the depreciation of its shares in and the ensuing loss of control over – a Ukrainian transport company (violation of Article 6§1).

    The main deficiencies found by the Court consist of:

      - repeated attempts by the President of Ukraine to influence domestic court decisions;

      - application of "protest" procedure ("application for supervision") making it possible to quash final judicial decisions without any limitations;

      - the refusal by courts to examine the arguments on the merits in a public hearing and the absence of adequate reasons for judicial decisions.

    The Court concluded in addition that the manner in which the impugned proceedings were conducted and concluded had also violated the applicant company's right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

    Individual measures: Given the extent of the violations found and their continuing negative effects on the applicant company, the Ukrainian authorities were invited to rapidly inform the Committee of Ministers of the measures adopted or envisaged to grant the applicant the appropriate redress. It was notably suggested that the reopening of the impugned proceedings may be an appropriate avenue to comply with the judgment, which does however not exclude other options (such as a friendly settlement, the revoking the impugned administrative decisions etc.). At the 834th (April 2003) and 841st (June 2003) meetings, the Ukrainian authorities confirmed that, further to the applicant's request, the present case was being re-examined by the Supreme Court of Ukraine but no progress in the proceedings was reported. At the 847th meeting (July 2003) the Ukrainian Delegation informed the Committee that the Supreme Court would hold a hearing in this case on 19/08/03.

    General measures: At the 827th meeting (February 2003), it was noted that the violations found in this case would call for a number general measures.

    - As regards the problem of the executive's repeated interferences of with judicial proceedings, the Ukrainian authorities were invited to revoke or quash all acts taken to that effect and adopt measures to prevent in future similar incidents as illegal and incompatible with the Convention. It was furthermore noted that legislative, regulatory or financial measures would be necessary to effectively ensure domestic courts’: independence and impartiality.

    - Concerning supervisory review (protest), it was recalled that this procedure had been abolished in the Ukrainian law since June 2001 and the authorities were requested to provide the Secretariat with all legal texts which introduced this important change in civil, criminal and commercial procedure.

    Sub-section 4.3

    - As finally regards other problems highlighted by the Court in the conduct of domestic proceedings (§§79 and 81 of the judgment), the authorities were also invited to address these issues to prevent new similar violations. In this context the need for wider dissemination of the judgment of the European Court and for in-service training of Ukrainian judges on the Convention and the Court's case-law was stressed.

    On 21/03/2003, the Director General of Human Rights sent the Ukrainian authorities a letter containing more detailed explanations on possible individual and general measures to be adopted in response to the present judgment (see Addendum 4).

    The following general measures have so far been reported by the Ukrainian authorities:

      - the procedure for supervisory review (protest) was abolished in Ukrainian law with the judicial reform of 21 June 2001;

      - the Law on the judiciary adopted in February 2002 set up the State Judicial Administration, a specialised institution independent from the executive with a view to management of the national judiciary; all Ukrainian courts are henceforth financed from the central budget; the budget assigned to the courts is administered by the country's supreme courts;

      - as a result of in-service training of Ukrainian magistrates in the framework of the Council of Europe/European Union joint initiative, domestic courts apply the Convention more frequently (certain examples of the Constitutional Court's decisions referring to the Convention were submitted to the Secretariat);

      - the European Court's judgment was translated and published on the Ministry of Justice's internet site and in the journal Case-law of the ECHR.

    At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Deputies took note of this information and the Ukrainian authorities were invited to inform the Committee of other measures envisaged or being taken. The attention of the authorities was drawn in particular to the issues raised in the letter of 21/03/2003 by the Director General of Human Rights, including the necessity of abolishing all acts (letters, resolutions, etc.) by which the executive interfered with the judiciary's independence, and to take the necessary measures at the highest level to prevent similar acts in future.

    At the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Ukrainian Delegation recalled the general measures already adopted and added that the Presidency was preparing a draft circular drawing the attention of the executive authorities to the unlawfulness of any interference with the independence of the judiciary. This information was noted with interest inasmuch as it concerns one of the central problems raised by the case. It was furthermore noted that a widespread publication of the judgment together with the planned circular by the Presidency in an official journal was of the utmost importance for the effective prevention of new similar violations. It was also stressed that the above mentioned magistrates' training programmes, which have so far been financed by the Council of Europe, should be pursued by the Ukrainian authorities to ensure that the direct effect be given to the Court's judgments.

    It was finally agreed that the Committee would adopt an interim resolution, taking stock of the measures adopted so far and pointing out the outstanding issues for the implementation of this judgment. At the time of issuing the present annotated agenda and order of business, the Secretariat was preparing the draft interim resolution in collaboration with the Ukrainian Delegation.

    - 1 case against the United Kingdom

    H54-1121 25599 A., judgment of 23/09/98

    CM/Inf(2003)22

    The case concerns the failure of the state to protect the applicant from ill-treatment (1993-1994) by his step-father (violation of Article 3).

    General measures: Newspaper coverage has been extensive. The publication of the judgment of the European Court judgment in a legal journal is still to be confirmed.

    As regards the legislative change which the United Kingdom authorities had undertaken to have adopted (see §24 of the judgment), the Secretariat received a copy of the Consultation Paper on the Physical Punishment of Children prepared by the United Kingdom authorities. Answers to the questions raised in this paper were ready by mid-2001. It was indicated that the answers should be the basis for further discussions on possible legislative changes to be introduced.

    Sub-section 4.3

    Subsequently, at the 775th meeting (December 2001) the United Kingdom authorities indicated that the Human Rights Act would suffice to prevent the recurrence of a breach of the kind found by the Court in this case so that no special legislative change was necessary. However, this new approach raised the question as to how parents, in the absence of a clear legislative change, would be made aware of the new standard.

    At the 819th meeting (December 2002) the United Kingdom Representative responded that ministers have asked the Attorney General to continue his review of the use of the “reasonable chastisement” defence. His report of May 2002 suggested that it was indeed being used reasonably. Furthermore steps had been taken to support families through promoting positive parenting, such as an HM Treasury announcement of a 25 million-pound (37 million-euro) three-year programme to support parents through the voluntary sector.

    The representative added that the National Family and Parenting Institute, which is government-funded, has launched a video and leaflet “From Breakfast to Bedtime”. This provides tips for parents on how to cope with “meltdown moments” with toddlers. Both parents and professionals have received it very well and NFPI is having to produce additional copies to meet demand. It deliberately avoids any mention of smacking since preliminary research with parents found that the positive parenting messages were much better received on their own.

    It was also stated that Ministers are aware that the smacking rules are different in Wales and Scotland where there is a total ban on childminders using corporal punishment, and are listening carefully to what others are saying on these issues. The representative further indicated that the Government would be reviewing the National Standards this year and this would be the opportunity for making any changes.

    In view of recent United Kingdom case-law evidencing a continuing high degree of tolerance in respect of what violence constitutes “reasonable chastisement” (discussed in particular at a seminar organised in Strasbourg on 21-22/11/2002) and the Government’s undertaking before the Court, several delegations and the Secretariat expressed the opinion that, apart from the measures already announced, legislative changes would be needed in this case.

    The Committee consequently asked to be kept informed of any new development in particular as regards legislative change.

    At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Committee asked the Secretariat to prepare a memorandum containing the information received so far in the case.

    Subsequently, in September 2003, the Secretariat received information from the United Kingdom authorities and the applicant’s representative. Reference to the latter information has been included in the memorandum (CM/Inf(2003)22) to be examined at the 854th DH meeting (October 2003).

    SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

    (See Addendum 5 for part or all these cases)

    Action

    The Deputies are invited to supervise progress in the adoption of general measures aiming at preventing further similar violations to those found by the Court in the following cases. If necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in Addendum 5. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases in 6 months at the latest.

    SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES

    - 1 case against France

    H46-1122 34000 DuRoy and Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01184

    - 1 case against Moldova

    H46-1124 45701 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 27/03/02

    The case concerns the failure of the Government to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The Court concluded that this non-recognition constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion and that this interference, although pursuing a legitimate aim, was not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus not justified under the Convention (violation of Article 9). The Court also concluded that the applicants did not enjoy an effective remedy in respect of their claims at domestic level (violation of Article 13).

    Individual measures: Following the Court's judgment, the Moldovan authorities recognised and registered the applicant Church on 30/07/2002 in accordance with the Moldovan Law on Religious Denominations, as amended on 12/07/2002. The Church has thus acquired legal personality thus opening the possibility for it to claim property entitlement.

    Since the registration of the Church, the procedure for the registration by the Department for Religious Denominations of the Church’s sub-divisions (parishes, rectories, monasteries etc.) has been initiated. This procedure is governed by the current Law on Religious Denominations and provisional Regulations adopted in October 1994. The same procedure applies to all religious denominations. According to the information provided by the Moldovan authorities in February 2003, 11 parishes, a monastery and 4 rectories had so far been registered within the applicant Church. The latter disposed at the time of more than 120 rectories with almost 160 priests.

    General measures: The Moldovan authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the original version of the judgment of the European Court and its official translation into Moldovan were published on 09/07/2002 in the Official Journal of Moldova (Monitorul Oficial, n°100).

    The Moldovan authorities also indicated that the Moldovan legislation on religious denominations was amended by Law n°1220-XV which entered into force on 12/07/2002.

    Article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been amended so as to allow the reopening of domestic civil proceedings following violations of the Convention found by the European Court. The Moldovan authorities moreover recalled that a similar provision (Article 369/2, 1i) had been in existence since June 2000 in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    These amendments to the law on religious denominations were however found to be insufficient to prevent new, similar violations (Articles 9§3 and 14 did not reflect the requirement of proportionality inherent to the Convention, lack of clarity on the right a religious community to take judicial proceedings against the authorities' decision to cancel its recognition, etc).

    A new draft law was accordingly submitted in March 2003 to the Secretariat. The result of the preliminary examination is, however, that the draft does not solve all outstanding problems which had already been identified in the law currently in force. This analysis was shared by the independent experts mandated by the Council of Europe to conduct a broader legal expertise on the draft at the request of the Moldovan authorities. This expertise was transmitted to the Moldovan authorities on 17/04/2003.

    Following the examination of the case at the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Chairman invited the Moldovan authorities to intensify their efforts, in consultation with the Secretariat, to revise the bill on religious denominations so as to ensure its compatibility with the ECHR and thus resolve the remaining issues raised by this case. Furthermore, he suggested that this should be done at the latest in time for the 113th Ministerial Session to be held in Chisinau in November 2003.

    On 14 and 15 July 2003, a working meeting was held at the Moldovan Ministry of Justice with the participation of the Secretariat, experts as well as representatives of different religious denominations. The problems of the present bill were examined in detail and concrete solutions were proposed. In conclusion, the authorities were invited to present to the Committee of Ministers for the 854th meeting (October 2003) a revised bill resolving all the outstanding problems.

    At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda and order of business, the Secretariat had not yet received this revised bill.

    Sub-section 5.1

    - 1 case against the Netherlands

    H46-1125 37328 A.B., judgment of 29/01/02, final on 29/04/02

    The case concerns supervision of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights and with his lawyer by prison authorities of the Netherlands Antilles in 1997-1998, in the European Court’s opinion without necessity or legitimate aim (violation of Article 8). The case also concerns the fact that the applicant had no means at his disposal of appealing against the conditions in which he was detained or the interference with his correspondence (violation of Article 13).

    General measures: A copy in English or French of the National Ordinance on Prisons in the Netherlands Antilles, which entered into force on 13/08/1999, has been requested. Furthermore, information has been requested on any development as to the adoption of the new Prison Regulations and Internal Prison Rules, and in particular as to whether an effective remedy will be introduced.

    - 36 cases against Poland

    H46-909 26760 Werner, judgment of 15/11/01

    The case relates to the lack of impartiality of the Koszalin District Court and to the unfairness of proceedings started before it in 1994, since the judge who had requested the applicant's dismissal from the post of judicial liquidator of a company, sat on the bench of the court during in camera proceedings inaccessible to the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

    General measures: A new Bankruptcy and Remedial Law was adopted on 28/02/2003. Pursuant to Article 170, Section 1, the decision of the insolvency judge to dismiss a judicial liquidator or administrator requires a justification. Under Article 172, Section 1, this decision is subject to appeal and may be examined in a hearing. The judge who took the contested decision shall not sit on the bench considering the complaint (Article 150). Pursuant to Article 229, matters concerning bankruptcy proceedings not addressed in this law shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure whose provisions provide the necessary guarantees (Articles 15-505). Copies of the relevant texts of this new legislation have been requested.

    The judgment of the European Court was published in the Bulletin of the Council of Europe Information Centre, No. 3, 2002 and disseminated to the courts dealing with liquidation proceedings.

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H54-1126 27916 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98

    H54-1127 28616 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98

    H46-1128 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

    H46-554 38665 Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03185

    H46-1129 27918 C., judgment of 03/05/01

    H32-1130 24559 Gibas, Interim Resolution DH(97)242

    H46-1131 48001 Goc, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

    H46-1132 29695 Gronuś, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

    H46-75 46034 Gryziecka and Gryziecki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03186

    H46-1133 71891 Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

    H46-1134 29691 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46-1135 52518 Koral, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-555 37437 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03187

    H46-1136 43779 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02

    Sub-section 5.1

    H46-76 52168 Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03188

    H46-1137 35843 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01

    H46-77 40887 Maliszewski, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03189

    H46-78 74816 Orzeł, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03190

    H46-1138 36250 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02

    H46-79 51429 Paśnicki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03191

    H46-1139 40330 Piechota, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46-80 39619 Piłka Andrzej and Barbara, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03192

    H46-1140 29455 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46-81 77597 R.O., judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03193

    H46-551 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03194

    H46-1141 37645 Sawicka, judgment of 01/10/02, final on 01/01/03

    *H46-82 40694 Sobański, judgment of 21/01/03, revised on 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03195

    H46-1142 25693+ Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01

    H46-1143 40835 Szarapo, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46-1144 48684 Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

    H46-1145 39505 W.M., judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

    H46-1146 65660 W.Z., judgment of 24/10/02, final on 24/01/03

    H46-1147 32734 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01

    H46-1148 33082 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01

    H46-1149 34158 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

    The Secretariat is preparing a draft Interim Resolution in co-operation with the Polish Representation. If ready in time for the meeting, this draft will be included in Addendum 5.

    - 1 case against Romania

    H54-1150 27053 Vasilescu, judgment of 22/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)676

    The case concerns the fact that valuables, unlawfully seized by the militia in 1966, were kept, and the right of access to an independent tribunal to order their return (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

    General measures: By a judgment of 02/12/1997, the Constitutional Court rectified the problem at the origin of the violation of Article 6§1, to a great extent, by interpreting Article 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as providing for judicial appeal against the acts of prosecutors (see Interim Resolution DH(99)676 of 08/10/1999). The judicial practice has subsequently changed and, as a result, appeals against prosecutors’ acts are now accepted by courts. At the 764th meeting (October 2001), it was noted that although the judicial practice had already changed, the rapid adoption of the new legislation confirming this change would be important. As regards the legislative situation, the Ministry of Justice has prepared a bill amending the Code of Criminal Procedure so that the latter confirms the new practice. In June 2002 the Romanian delegation indicated that the government had already approved this bill and sent it to Parliament.

    By letter of 11/09/2003, the Romanian delegation informed the Secretariat that the Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended on 01/07/2003 so as to allow a judicial recourse against seizure measures adopted during criminal investigations. The Secretariat is currently examining the relevant provisions of this new legislation.

    Sub-section 5.1

    - 1 case against Switzerland

    H46-1151 31827 J.B., judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01

    This case concerns the fact that in proceedings to determine the taxes owed by the applicant, the Swiss authorities tried, between 1988 and 1996, to compel him to submit documents giving information concerning his income with a view to assessing his taxes, fining him on four occasions because he did not respond. These attempts to compel the applicant can be analysed as infringing his right not to incriminate himself, given that he could not exclude that any additional income from untaxed sources which transpired from these documents could have constituted the offence of withholding tax, in which case he would be liable to a fine (violation of Article 6§1).

    General measures: The Swiss delegation has confirmed the dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the relevant authorities and its publication. Taking account of the direct effect of judgments of the European Court, the Swiss authorities will no longer apply the provision in question or the similar provisions existing in the law of the Cantons. An expert committee has been set up to examine the consequences of the judgment for criminal tax law as a whole. The Delegation has indicated that the examination of all the judgment’s implications will need some time.

    - 7 cases against the United Kingdom

    H54-1152 22520 Johnson Stanley, judgment of 24/10/97

    The case concerns the applicant’s continued detention in a hospital, although he was no longer suffering from mental illness, pending his placement in a hostel (violation of Article 5§1).

    General measures: the Representative of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers that a circular issued by the Department of Health (number HSC 2000/03) had been sent to all authorities concerned drawing attention to the Johnson judgment. A revised Statutory Code of Practice of the Mental Health Act of 1983 came into force on 01/04/1999. Furthermore, both the report of a group of independent experts appointed to review all the changes needed to the Mental Health Act and the Consultation Paper on the reform of the Mental Health Act (Green Paper) were published on 16/11/1999. On 15/06/2002, the draft bill was published. The Committee has asked to be kept informed as to when the expected Mental Health Bill remedying the breaches found in this case will be placed before Parliament.

    Finally, the Johnson judgment has been published in the European Human Rights Report (Sweet & Maxwell).

    H46-1153 30308 Faulkner Ian, judgment of 30/11/99 - Friendly settlement

    The applicant complained of the fact that he could not pursue a civil action in Guernsey, as legal aid could not be granted for that purpose (complaint under Article 6§1).

    General measures: The Government of the United Kingdom has informed the Committee that following the introduction of an interim Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, an interim Civil Legal Aid Scheme was introduced with effect from 01/01/2002. As to the Criminal Aid Scheme, in 119 cases during the year 2001, legal aid has been provided for persons who have been detained in police or customs custody. Draft framework legislation was drawn up by the Guernsey authorities in autumn 2002 with a view to having legislation in place towards mid-2003. The Committee has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field.

    Sub-section 5.1

    The Secretariat is currently examining the “Code of Practice covening the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers” issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which came into force in April 2003, and therefore it proposes to postpone consideration of these cases to the 863rd meeting (2-3 December 2003).

    H32-1154 23496 Quinn, Interim Resolutions DH(98)214 and ResDH(2002)85

    H32-1155 22384 Murray Kevin, Interim Resolutions DH(98)156 and ResDH(2002)85

    H46-1156 28135 Magee, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)85

    H54-1157 18731 Murray John, judgment of 08/02/96, Interim Resolutions DH(2000)26 and ResDH(2002)85

    H46-1158 36408 Averill, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)85

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

    - 1 case against France

    H46-1159 33592 Baumann, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

    The case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a court (between 1993 and 1995) in order to obtain recognition of his right of property with respect to possessions seized and then confiscated by decision of a court (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, due to the seizure and then confiscation of his passport (violation of Article 2 Protocol No. 4).

    Individual measure: Following the judgment of the European Court, which is directly applicable, the applicant has the possibility to lodge a request for restitution of his effects (including the sums of money kept on a special account of the Caisse des dépôts et consignations) based on Articles 710 and 711 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    General measures: The European Court’s judgment has been sent to all Procesutors General of courts of appeal. Confirmation of its publication is awaited. The dissemination of the judgment to examining magistrates is also expected. In addition, information concerning precisely how the appeal provided in Article 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised had been asked for at the 764th meeting (October 2001). During the 819th meeting (December 2002), the French delegation announced that a possible change of this text or of the practice was being examined by the department of criminal affairs.

    SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

    - 2 cases against France

    H46-1160 42400 Seguin, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 06/11/02

    The case concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings before administrative and civil courts, concerning a redundancy for economic reasons, ended by a judgment of the Court of Cassation on 21/01/1998 (12 years and 9 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

    General measure: the publication of the judgment of the European Court was requested at the 827th meeting (February 2003).

    H46-1161 49857 Ottomani, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

    The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 16/06/1992 and ended on 26/11/1998 (more than six years and five months, more than four years of which covered only the investigatory stage).

    General measure: the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to investigating magistrates was requested at the 834th meeting (April 2003).

    - 1 case against Italy

    H46-1163 30127 Sciortino, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 27/03/02

    The case concerns an unjustified interference with the applicant’s property rights on account of the failure of the Sicily Regional Administration to comply fully with two final judgments of 1993 and 1997, ordering the payment of certain sums to the applicant (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Furthermore, the case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings before the Court of Audit, which lasted five years, from 1994 to 1999 (violation of Article 6§1). The Court awarded the applicant, as pecuniary damage, the sums still unpaid by the Sicilian regional authorities.

    General measures: at the 798th meeting (June 2002), the Italian authorities were invited to disseminate the judgment of the European Court to the Italian regional authorities with a circular.

    - 1 case against Poland

    H46-1164 27715+ Berliński Roman and Sławomir, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    The case concerns in particular the prosecutor's failure to deal with the applicants' request for free legal assistance at the first stage of criminal proceedings. The applicants were deprived of a lawyer for more than a year and were sentenced in 1996 to one and one-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, suspended (violation of Articles 6§§1 and 3c).

    General measures: At the 819th meeting (December 2002), publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all prosecutors was suggested. On 07/02/2003, the Polish delegation informed the Secretariat that the judgment (in Polish translation) had been disseminated to the offices of all public prosecutors attached to appeal courts with a request to communicate it to all public prosecutors and to take it into account in the training of the subordinate prosecutor offices. The publication of the judgment has not yet been confirmed.

    Sub-section 5.3

    - 1 case against Portugal

    H46-1165 44872 Magalhaes Pereira, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

    The case concerns the failure to respect the applicant’s right to a regular review of the lawfulness of his detention on psychiatric grounds (from 01/03/1998 to 20/01/2000) (violation of Article 5§4). The case also concerns the fact that the applicant was, until October 2000, denied appropriate legal assistance in proceedings to examine the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4).

    Individual measures: By decision of 24/05/2002, the Porto court has released the applicant.

    General measures: Confirmation of the publication of the judgment of the European Court is still awaited.

    - 1 case against Slovenia

    H46-1166 42320 Belinger, judgment of 13/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    The case concerns the length of civil proceedings which were still pending at national level when the European Court issued its judgment (complaint under Article 6§1).

    The Slovenian Delegation informed the Committee of the measures taken in order to avoid similar complaints during the examination of the Majarič case (judgment of 08/02/2000) for which the Secretariat is preparing a final resolution.

    General measure: Publication of the judgment of the European Court was requested at the 803rd meeting (July 2002). Its confirmation is awaited.

        SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

        No new case

    SECTION 6 - CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION:

    (See Addendum 6 for part or all these cases)

    Action

    At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the information available on the measures taken in these cases seemed to allow the preparation of draft resolutions putting an end to their examination by the Committee of Ministers (if necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in Addendum 6). As regards the cases appearing under sub-section 6.1, the Deputies are invited to examine the new information available with a view to evaluating whether a draft final resolution can be prepared. As regards cases listed under sub-section 6.2, the Deputies are invited to note that the elaboration of a draft final resolution, in cooperation with the Delegation of the respondent State, is under way. In both cases, the Deputies are invited to postpone consideration of these cases to their next meeting.

    Sub-section 6.1

    Cases in which the new information available since the last examination appears to allow the preparation of a draft final resolution

    - 1 case against Estonia

    H46-866 37571 Veeber, No. 1, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

    The case relates to the lack of access to a tribunal to challenge the lawfulness of the seizure by police of the applicant's company's bookkeeping documents in Tartu in 1995, as the courts seised declared that they were not competent to examine this issue (violation of Article 6§1).

    General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the internet site of the Council of Europe Information Office (www.eni.ee) and communicated to courts and public prosecutors. By a ruling of 22/12/00, the Estonian Supreme Court declared that the administrative courts were competent to decide on the substance of complaints against police searches and seizure of documents.

    - 1 case against France

    H46-836 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

    The case concerns the sentencing of the applicant, a Moroccan national, to permanent exclusion from French territory even though the offences he committed cannot be considered particularly serious, and given that the applicant has strong links with France but none with Morocco except for the mere fact of nationality (violation of Article 8).

    Individual measures: The French authorities have indicated that the applicant had been placed on a compulsory residence order by decision of 03/07/01. The applicant’s lawyer has lodged an application for rescission of the exclusion order (precondition for the delivery of a residence permit).

    On 10/06/2003, the French Delegation wrote to the Vice-Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies recapitulating the position of France in this case, i.e. that the case could be closed. The Secretariat has answered by a letter of 25/06/2003, explaining the reasons why, in its view, it could not be closed (see Addendum 4 prepared for the 847th meeting (July 2003)).

    By a judgment of 02/09/2003, the Lyon Court of Appeal, referring to the judgment of the European Court in this case, has pronounced the total rescission of the exclusion order.

    - 1 case against Norway

    H46-906 30287 Hammern, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

    Following his acquittal by Norwegian courts of charges of sexual abuse of minors, committed in 1992, the applicant brought a compensation claim for damage sustained as a result of the criminal proceedings. The European Court found that decisions taken in 1995 by the Norwegian courts concerning the compensation claim in question were based, in application of Article 444 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on reasoning which implied suspicion of criminal guilt despite the applicant’s acquittal (violation of Article 6§2).

    Individual measures: According to Article 391 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act, the applicant has the possibility to request the reopening of the proceedings.

    General measures: The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act relating to compensation in connection with prosecution, including section 444, have been amended by Act No. 3 of 10/01/03. According to this amendment, the need for the acquitted person to prove that it was more likely that he had not committed the offence he was charged with , in order to obtain compensation, no longer exists.

    The judgment of the European Court was published on the internet site of the Norwegian government (www.odin.dep.no) and disseminated to judicial authorities in a press release by the Ministry of Justice on 11/02/03.

    Sub-section 6.1

    - 2 cases against San Marino

    H46-1387 24954 Tierce and others, judgment of 25/07/00

    H46-1388 35396 Stefanelli, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    These cases concern the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings, held between 1993 and 1996, which resulted in the applicants’ conviction respectively to three years’ imprisonment in the case of Ms Stefanelli and one year’s imprisonment, suspended, as regards Mr Tierce. The European Court found that Article 6§1 had been violated in that the defendants, according to San Marino law, could not be heard personally by the appeal judge in a public hearing. In addition, in the case of Tierce and others, the Court found that, in respect of the first applicant, Article 6§1 had been violated because the double functions – as investigating and trial judge – of the Commissario della Legge and the extent of his/her investigating powers could objectively cast doubts on his/her impartiality.

    Individual measures: the government indicated that reparation for the sentence handed down to Mr Tierce was provided by a decree of the court delivered on 31/10/2002, which effectively cancelled the crime. Accordingly, the reference to the conviction which was in violation of the Convention, was removed from Mr Tierce’s record and he is no longer barred from running a company. The fact that the crime has been cancelled is also recorded in the “historical” criminal record, used solely by the judicial authorities.

    With regard to the assets seized at the request of Mr Tierce’s former associate, the Government points out that such seizure was solely part of the civil procedure for damages initiated by the applicant’s former associate, still pending before the national courts. It stresses that the courts in question are not bound by the findings of the criminal procedure and will take due account of the violations found: accordingly, this is a matter totally unrelated to the complaints at issue in the present case. Furthermore, it recalls that the decision to close the case pending before the Committee would not prejudge the outcome of the procedure pending before the national courts nor the outcome of any new application filed before the European Court.

    As regards Ms Stefanelli, the Government pointed out that the applicant had already served her sentence. In addition, a reference to the violation found by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the unfair nature of the conviction, has been noted in the applicant’s record and on 12/03/2001, the restrictions still applying to her civil and political rights were lifted.

    Further to Recommendation R(2000) 2 by the Committee of Ministers to member states on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, on 27 June 2003 the San Marino Parliament (Consiglio Grande e Generale) passed a new law which in future will make it possible to reopen before national courts criminal proceedings which have been in violation of the Convention, so as to provide reparation in accordance with the requirements of Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The applicants wished to raise the Committee’s attention to the fact that, as this legislation is not retroactive, it does not allow their cases to be reopened notwithstanding the fact that, according to their allegation, a full restitutio in integrum would only be possible through such reopening. They accordingly ask that direct contacts with the authorities of San Marino be taken in this perspective. Proceedings aimed at obtaining the rehabilitation in the case of Mr. Tierce and the revision of Ms Stefanelli’s conviction are still pending before the domestic authorities.

    General measures: in order to inform the public and make it easier for the courts to take account of the requirements emerging from the Tierce and Stefanelli judgments in implementing San Marino law, these judgments have been made public by posting the whole text in Italian, French and English on the doors of the Public Palace (ad valvas palatii) on 19/07/2000.

    Sub-section 6.1

    As regards the appeal, the aforementioned law adopted on 27/06/2003 also amended Article 198.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Law No. 20 of 24/02/2000, by explicitly confirming the possibility, already recognised in practice by the case-law, for an accused to be heard in person, if he or she so requests, by the court during the public appeal hearing. In addition, the Government pointed out that since 1992, the accused are entitled to plead their case at the public hearing at first instance (see §14 Stefanelli judgment; §§55-58 Tierce judgment) and that the violation in the Stefanelli case arose from the failure to apply this new legislation to the proceedings in which the applicant was involved.

    In addition, the possibility for a combination of functions by the Commissario della Legge was abolished by Law No. 83 of 1992 on the administration of justice which applies until the entry into force of a new Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection, the parliamentary committee working on the draft code has ruled out the possibility of combining investigation and judgment functions, in accordance with the case-law of the European Court, and the San Marino authorities have undertaken not to reintroduce such a combination of functions in the new Code of Criminal Procedure.

    -2 cases against Switzerland

    H54-929 20919 E.L., R.L. and O.-L., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)111

    H54-930 19958 A.P., M.P. and T.P., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)110

    These cases concern the fact that the applicants, as heirs and irrespective of any personal guilt, were convicted of offences allegedly committed by the testator, in breach of the presumption of innocence, in that “inheritance of the guilt of the dead is not compatible with the standards of criminal justice in a society governed by the rule of law” (violation of Article 6§2).

    General measures: The Swiss Delegation has stated that the legislative amendment process of the impugned provisions was ongoing but has been delayed. Furthermore, it confirmed that the Federal Court had decided in 1998 that the provisions concerned must no longer be applied. In a letter dated 11/06/2003, the Swiss Delegation confirmed that this conforms with the authorities’ administrative practice; it also confirmed that no similar application has been lodged before the Swiss Federal Court (Tribunal fédéral) since the pronouncement of the European Court’s decisions. In the light of this clear and stable legal situation, the Government considers that it is possible to close the case without waiting for the end of the legislative reform.

    - 1 case against the United Kingdom

    H46-1037 32771 Cuscani, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

    The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the absence of interpretation at the hearing in 1996, at which he was sentenced. The European Court indicated that the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, but the ultimate guardian of the fairness of the proceedings is the trial judge who had been clearly apprised of the real difficulties which the absence of interpretation might create for the applicant (violation of Article 6§1 taken in conjunction with Article 6§3e).

    Individual measures: The Criminal Case Review Commission, seised of a request for a new trial on the basis of the shortcoming in respect of the interpretation, held that whilst the conviction was arguably unsatisfactory it was not unsafe.

    General measures: The judgment was published in European Human Rights Reporters (Sweet & Maxwell) (2003) 36 and disseminated to the criminal courts. According to Section 2 of the Human Rights Act (HRA), which came into force in October 2000, a court or tribunal determining a question in connection with a Convention right must take into account any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the Court as well as any decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention. Under Section 3 of the HRA, legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights. According to Section 6, it is unlawful for a public authority (including courts and tribunals) to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. The Government is of the opinion that these measures prevent similar violations in the future.

    Sub-section 6.2

    Cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

    - 23 cases against Austria

    H46-1169 36519 Petschar, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1170 45330+ S.L., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46-1171 34994 Walter, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H32-1172 17291 Hortolomei, Interim Resolution DH(99)28

    H46-1173 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

    H46-1174 38237 Sailer, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

    H46-1175 38275 W.F., judgment of 30/05/02, final on 30/08/02

    H32-1176 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H., Interim Resolution DH(98)378

    H46-1177 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

    H46-1178 30428 Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01

    H46-1179 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

    H46-1180 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

    H46-1181 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

    H46-1182 32899 Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46-1183 49455 Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

    H46-1184 33505 H.E., judgment of 11/07/02, final on 06/11/02

    H46-1185 38536 Schreder, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H46-1186 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

    H46-1187 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

    H46-1188 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    H46-1189 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

    H46-1190 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

    - Freedom of expression

    H54-1196 15153 Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Berthold Gubi,

    judgment of 19/12/94

    - 2 cases against Belgium

    H54-1197 17849 S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera and others, judgment of 20/11/95, Interim Resolution DH(99)724

    H54-1198 25357 Aerts, judgment of 30/07/98

    - 3 cases against Bulgaria

    H32-1199 30381 Mironov, Interim Resolution DH(99)352

    H46-1200 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1201 29221 Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

    Sub-section 6.2

    - 1 case against Cyprus

    H46-1202 29515 Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

    - 4 cases against the Czech Republic

    H46-1203 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber

    H46-1204 33644 Cesky, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

    H46-1205 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

    H46-1206 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

    - 2 cases against Denmark

    H46-1207 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1208 56811 Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

    - 8 cases against Finland

    H46-1209 31611 Nikula, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

    H46-1210 49684 Hirvisaari, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

    H46-1211 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

    H46-1212 31764 K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01

    H46-1213 29346 K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46-1214 25702 K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber

    H46-1215 30013 Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

    H46-1216 35999 Pietiläinen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 27/01/03

    - 71 cases against France

    H32-1217 26242 Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353

    H32-1218 31409 Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557

    H46-1219 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

    H46-1220 24846 Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 –

    Grand Chamber

    H32-1221 26984 Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30

    H46-1222 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46-1223 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

    H46-1224 25088 Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99

    H54-1225 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

    H32-1226 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I

    H54-1227 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

    H32-1228 27413 Cazes, Interim Resolution DH(99)31

    H46-1229 25444 Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

    H46-1230 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

    H46-1231 42195 Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

    H32-1232 27659 Ferville, Interim Resolution DH(99)254

    H32-1233 28845 Venot, Interim Resolution DH(2000)19

    H46-1234 29507 Slimane-Kaïd II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00

    H46-1235 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

    H54-1236 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

    H32-1237 17572 A.C.

    Sub-section 6.2

    H54-1238 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

    H46-1239 34791 Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

    H54-1240 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

    H46-1241 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

    H32-1242 20282 G.B. I

    H32-1243 23321 Delbec I, Interim Resolution DH(98)15

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46-1244 53118 Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    H46-1246 35589 Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

    H46-1247 41943 L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1248 47575 Marks and Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

    H32-1249 29877 Pauchet and others - Interim Resolution DH(98)100

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H54-1250 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

    H54-1251 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

    H54-1252 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

    H54-1253 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

    H46-1254 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

    H32-1257 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V, Interim Resolution DH(98)388

    H46-1258 42189 H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1259 40493 Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    H46-1260 42276 Julien Lucien, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-1261 57753 C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

    H46-1262 44211 Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

    H46-1264 43288 Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01

    H32-1265 25309 Maljean, Interim Resolution DH(97)239

    H46-1255 47007 Arnal, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

    H46-1256 51575 Baillard, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 04/09/02

    H46-1263 44617 Leray and others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    H46-1266 46708 Zaheg, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Conseil d’Etat

    H46-1267 38249 Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

    H46-1268 28660 Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01

    H46-1269 33207 Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

    H46-1270 36932 Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99

    H46-1271 42401 Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01

    H46-1272 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

    H46-1273 41449 Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

    H46-1274 42038 Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

    H46-1275 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00

    H46-1276 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/02,

    final on 14/08/02

    H46-1277 44066 Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-1278 41001 Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

    H46-1279 37387 Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

    H46-1280 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 10/07/02

    H32-1281 32510 Peter, Interim Resolution DH(99)132

    H46-1282 33989 Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

    H46-1283 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    Sub-section 6.2

    - Length of proceedings before the labour courts

    H32-1284 39966 De Cantelar, Interim Resolution DH(2000)86

    H46-1285 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

    H46-1286 47194 Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1287 44791 Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46-1288 33951 Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00

    - 7 cases against Germany

    H46-199 38365 Thieme, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-1162 34045 Hoffmann, judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02

    H46-1289 37928 Stambuk, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

    H46-1290 45835 Hesse-Anger, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46-1291 44324 Kind, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

    H46-1292 39547 Niederböster, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

    H46-1294 33900 P.S., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 04/09/02

    - 39 cases against Greece

    H46-1295 47734 Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

    H46-1296 46356 Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

    H54-1297 19233+ Tsirlis and Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

    H54-1298 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

    H54-1299 23372+ Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98

    H54-1300 18748 Manoussakis and others, judgment of 25/09/96

    H46-1301 38178 Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

    H46-1302 34369 Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

    H46-1303 38703 Agoudimos and Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., judgment of 28/06/01,

    final on 28/09/01

    H46-1304 37098 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 21/03/00

    H54-1305 21522 Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

    H46-1306 41209 Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    H32-1307 34373 Goutsos, Interim Resolution DH(99)558

    H54-1308 18357 Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

    H46-1309 31107 Iatridis, judgments of 25/03/99 and 19/10/00 (Article 41) – Grand Chamber

    H46-1310 53478 Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

    H32-1311 32397 Sinnesael, Interim Resolution DH(99)130

    H46-1312 28802 Tsavachidis, judgment of 21/01/99 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1313 43622 Malama, judgments of 01/03/01, final on 05/09/01 and of 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

    H46-1314 25701 Former King of Greece, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini, judgments of 23/11/00 and of 28/11/02 (Article 41) - Grand Chamber

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46-1315 30342 Academy Trading Ltd and others, judgment of 04/04/00

    H46-1316 40434 Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

    H46-1317 46380 LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H46-1318 42079 E.H., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

    H46-1319 41459 Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

    H46-1320 41867 Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

    H54-1321 20323 Pafitis and others, judgment of 26/02/98

    Sub-section 6.2

    H46-1322 38971 Protopapa and Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    H46-1323 38704 Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

    H32-1324 34569 Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique, commerciale and touristique, Interim Resolution DH(99)271

    H46-1325 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

    H46-1326 40437 Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

    H46-1327 38459 Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

    H46-1328 55611 Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 04/09/02

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46-1329 37439 Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

    H54-1330 19773 Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

    H54-1331 28523 Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

    H32-1332 32857 Stamoulakatos Nicholas I, Interim Resolution DH(99)49

    H32-1333 24453 Tarighi Wageh Dashti

    - 10 cases against Italy

    H46-1334 33993 Messina No. 3, judgment of 24/10/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46-1335 41221 Troiani Marcello II, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02

    H32-1336 27253 Biasetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)356

    H46-1337 44955 Mancini Vittorio and Luigi, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46-1338 31227 Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

    H32-1339 16609 Intrieri, Interim Resolution DH(97)50

    H54-1340 14025 Zubani, judgments of 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

    H46-1341 34896 Craxi II, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

    - Cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

    H46-1342 37888 Cecchi Ida, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1343 34435 Di Tullio, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Latvia

    H46-1344 50108 Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

    - 10 cases against Lithuania

    H46-1345 48297 Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

    H46-1346 37975 Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

    H46-1347 36743 Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

    H46-1348 34578 Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

    H46-1349 47679 Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

    H46-1350 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01

    H46-1351 44558 Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

    H46-1352 44800 Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

    H46-1353 55479 Slezevicius, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

    H46-1354 47698 Birutis and others, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    Sub-section 6.2

    - 3 cases against Malta

    H46-1355 25642 Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46-1356 25644 T.W., judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46-1357 35892 Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

    - 10 cases against the Netherlands

    H46-1358 32605 Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

    H46-1359 25989 Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

    H46-1360 31465 Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

    H32-1361 14084 R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

    H46-1362 28369 Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

    H46-1363 29192 Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

    H46-1364 31725 Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1365 33258 Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1367 34549 Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

    H46-1368 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

    - 11 cases against Poland

    H46-921 27785 Włoch, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 22/01/01

    *H46-1369 29537+ Radaj, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

    *H46-1370 35489 Sałapa, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46-1371 31382 Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

    H46-1372 38670 Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

    H46-1373 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1374 24244 Migoń, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

    H46-1375 32499 Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1376 25874 Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

    H46-1377 55106 Górka, judgment of 05/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1379 67165 Sędek, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 6 cases against Portugal

    H46-1380 49671 Ferreira da Nave, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

    H46-1381 29813+ Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcao and others, judgments of 11/01/00

    and of 10/04/01

    H46-1382 37698 Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

    H54-1383 15777 Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

    H46-1384 33290 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

    H46-1385 53793 Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Romania

    H32-1386 32922 C.C.M.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)333

    Sub-section 6.2

    - 16 cases against the Slovak Republic

    H46-1389 24530 Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

    H46-1390 29032 Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

    H46-1391 32686 Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

    H46-1392 41384 Varga, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46-1393 34753 Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46-1394 40058 Gajdúšek, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

    H46-1395 47804 Havala, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46-1396 39752 Matoušková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46-1397 48672 Nemec and others, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

    H46-1398 40345 Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

    H46-1399 38794 J.K., judgment of 23/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1400 62171 Lancz, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1401 41783 Polovka, judgment of 21/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1402 46843 Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1403 65640 Rotrekl, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46-1404 43377 Žiačik, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

    - 2 cases against Slovenia

    H46-1405 29462 Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

    H46-1406 28400 Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

    - 11 cases against Switzerland

    H46-1407 41202 Müller, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46-1408 33958 Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

    H46-1409 27798 Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

    H54-1410 23224 Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

    H46-1411 54273 Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

    H46-1413 33499 Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

    H46-1414 27426 G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

    H46-1415 28256 M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

    H46-1416 27154 D.N., judgment of 29/03/01 - Grand Chamber

    H32-1417 27613 P.B., Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)83

    H54-1418 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678

    - 125 cases against Turkey

    H46-1419 30944 Öcal, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1420 29295+ Ecer and Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46-1421 34686 Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1422 29495 Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

    Sub-section 6.2

    H46-1424 24932 Kaplan, judgment of 26/02/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1425 24669 Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1426 31249 Gündüz and others, judgment of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1427 25144 Sadak Selim and others, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 06/11/02

    - Independence and impartiality of the State security courts

    H46-1428 42739 Özel Yaşar, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

    H46-1429 29851 Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

    H46-1430 41316 Atça and others, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

    H46-1431 59659 Özdemir Tekin, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

    - Action of the Turkish security forces

    H46-1432 31882 Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1433 24947 Ekinci Lalihan, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1434 31849 İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1435 24937 Koç Fırat, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1436 24933 Kürküt, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1437 31733 Tuncay and Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1438 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1439 28011 Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    - Length of the detention on remand / on custody

    H46-1440 34481 Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1441 31850 Günay and others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

    H46-1442 31877 Gündoğan Halil, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46-1443 29296 İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1444 29862 Bağci and Murğ, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1445 32450 Çaloğlu, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1446 31896 Değerli, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1447 29866+ Demir C., Demir M. and Gül, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1448 29883+ Fidan, Çağro and Özarslaner, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1449 31787 Göktaş and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1450 28013+ Karatepe and Kırt, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1451 34499 Kortak, judgment of 31/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1452 36971 Kuray, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1453 31895 Morsümbül, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1454 30495 Mutlu and Yildiz, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1455 28014+ Okuyucu, Kara and Bilmen, judgment of 17/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1456 30453 Özata and others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1457 29425 Özçelik and others, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1458 36760 Şanlı and Erol, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1459 37191 Yildirim and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1460 34684 Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1461 35980 Z.E., judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1462 25756 Dalkılıç, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

    H46-1463 24737+ Satık, Camlı, Satık and Maraşlı, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

    - Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

    H46-1464 19265 Atak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1465 19660 Çalkan Dudu, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46-1466 20140 Çelebi Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46-1467 20144 Kartal Adile, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46-1468 20152 Özen Mehmet, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    Sub-section 6.2

    H46-1469 20151 Öztürk Ahmet, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46-1470 20155 Şen Aziz No. 2, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46-1471 19264 Aktaş and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H32-1472 22907 Atatür A. and M., and Pamir, Interim Resolution DH(2000)84

    H46-1473 19266 Baltekin Rıza, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1474 20132 Bilgin Burhan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1475 20133 Bilgin Leyli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1476 19267 Bilgin Mehmet and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1477 20134 Bilgin Münir, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1478 19268 Bilgin Saniye and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1479 19269 Bozkurt and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1480 19272 Çalkan and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1481 20136 Canlı, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1482 19273 Çapar, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1483 19274 Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1484 19275 Çelebi Yusuf, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1485 20139 Çelebi Mehmet No. 3, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46-1486 19276 Çiplak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1487 19277 Daniş, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1488 68117 Denli Nesibe, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 23/10/02

    H46-1489 19278 Erol, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1490 19280 Gökgöz, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1491 19281 Gökmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1492 20142 Günal Kazım, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1493 19270 Ilhan Buzcu and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1494 20143 İnce Fehmiye, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46-1495 19283 Işik Ayşe and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1496 19284 Işik Yilmaz and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1497 19286 Karabulut Sefer, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1498 19271 Nuriye Buzcu, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1499 30448 Önel Ahmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46-1500 30948 Önel Mehmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46-1501 30446 Önel Temur, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46-1502 30447 Özel Hacı Bayram, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46-1503 31964 Özel Hacı Osman, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46-1504 19287 Özen, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1505 19288 Öztekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46-1506 20153 Şen Ismet, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1507 20156 Şen Kemal, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1508 20154 Şen Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1509 20158 Taşdemir Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46-1510 38916 Atalağ, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1511 38915 Bayram Abdullah Naci, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1512 35867 Bayram and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1513 37414 Birsel and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1514 26543 Çallı, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1515 38931 İ.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1516 35050 Karabıyık and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1517 33322 Özdiler and Bakan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1518 33419 Özdiler Hasan Doğan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1519 35079 Özkan and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46-1520 35866 Ünlü Dudu, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 6.2

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46-1521 31880 Adıyaman, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1522 32964 Akçam, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1523 33362 Akyazı, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1524 29280 Başpınar, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1525 29913 Binbir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1526 26480 Bürkev, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1527 29912 Çilengir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1528 32981 Dede and others, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

    H46-1529 29699 Dinleten, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1530 31891 Genç, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1531 39428 İnan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1532 28291 Kanbur, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1533 32990 Karademir, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1534 32987 Keskin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1535 29360 Ketenoğlu Gülşen and Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01,

    final on 25/12/01

    H46-1536 29700 Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1537 29701 Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1538 31960 Pekdaş, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1539 31961 Şahin Metin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

    H46-1540 29702 Sarıtaç, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1542 29911 Uygur, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46-1543 31834 Yağız Hasan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46-1544 29703 Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H46-1546 29921 Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

    - 23 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46-1168 39393 M.G., judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

    H46-1167 39197 Foley, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

    H46-1547 36533 Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

    H46-1548 24265 Devenney, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

    H46-1549 48521 Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

    H46-1550 24724 T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46-1551 24888 V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46-1552 45276 Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

    H54-1553 24839 Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

    H32-1555 26109 Santa Cruz Ruiz, Interim Resolution DH(99)

    H46-1557 28901 Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

    H46-1558 35718 Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

    H46-1559 33274 Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

    H46-1560 39360 S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

    H54-1561 20605 Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

    H46-1562 36670 Duyonov and others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46-1563 32340 Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    H46-1564 28945 T.P. and K.M., judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

    H46-1566 37471 William Faulkner, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

    Interference to private life due to police surveillance by covert devices

    H46-1556 35394 Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

    H32-1554 27237 Govell, Interim Resolution DH(98)212

    H46-1565 44787 P.G. and J.H., judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

    H46-1038 47114 Taylor-Sabori, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

    PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
    (863rd MEETING, 2-3 December 2003)

(See Addendum Preparation of the next meeting)

Action

The Deputies are invited to approve the preliminary lists of items to be examined at the next DH meeting, which appears in Addendum Preparation of the next meeting to the present annotated agenda and order of business.

 

Meetings

Sections

863

854

847

841

834

827

819

810

803

798

General Questions

               

-

-

1.1

 

5

2

3

4

8

2

12

0

11

1.2

 

3

5

4

53

2

0

6

11

36

1.3

 

2

8

15

47

18

4

11

4

8

1.4

 

11

10

17

56

44

10

36

25

2

2

 

114

98

76

99

52

108

154

277

142

3.1.a

 

486

0

469

439

546

677

638

568

536

3.1.b

 

188

0

170

165

129

110

89

116

70

3.1.c

 

27

0

40

40

39

38

39

36

36

3.2

 

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

1

2

4.1

 

10

4

10

15

6

15

17

15

8

4.2

 

289

101

82

156

78

116

112

91

78

4.3

 

73

4

5

123

2174

2155

5

71

72

5.1

 

40

4

39

33

25

32

21

13

12

5.2

 

1

1

-

1

0

1

-

0

0

5.3

 

6

3

4

7

5

11

7

16

3

5.4

 

0

0

-

0

0

0

-

0

0

6.1

 

8

375

372

355

406

377

318

351

324

6.2

 

391

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total of the cases on the Agenda197

 

1559

615

1276

1479

3151

3186

1456

1595

1340

Total of final resolutions submitted

 

21

25

39

160

72

16

65

40

57

Total of new cases

 

115

98

76

99

52

108

154

277

142

Total of pending cases

 

3448

3352

3312

3380

3370

3327

3276

3187

2964

    SECTION 1 – FINAL RESOLUTIONS

    In the cases appearing under this heading the Deputies are invited to adopt draft resolutions putting an end to the supervision of execution carried out pursuant to Article 46§2 of the Convention (or former Articles 32198 and 54 for cases decided before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).

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

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

      Sub-section 1.1. - Leading cases

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

      Sub-section 1.2 – Cases concerning problems already solved

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SECTION 2 – NEW CASES

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

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

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

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

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

    SECTION 3 – JUST SATISFACTION

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

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

    Sub-section 3.1 – control of payment:

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

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

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

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

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

      Sub-section 3.2 – Decisions on just satisfaction

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

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

    SECTION 4 – CASES RAISING SPECIAL QUESTIONS

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

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

      Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

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

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

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

      Sub-section 4.3 – Special problems

      This title groups together complex cases raising special problems.

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

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

    SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

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

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

      Sub-section 5.1 Legislative and/or regulatory changes

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

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

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

      Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

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

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

      Sub-section 5.4 – Other measures

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

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

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

    SECTION 6 CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION

    In these cases, the information available at this meeting on the measures adopted appears to allow the preparation and presentation of a draft resolution putting an end to the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers.

    Supplementary information with respect to the cases in this section will be presented, where necessary, in Addendum 6.

    Examination is in principle to be resumed at the next Human Rights meeting.

      Sub-section 6.1 – cases in which the new information available since the last examination appears to allow the preparation of a draft final resolution

      This sub-section includes cases in which the preparation of a draft final resolution appears to be possible, in the light of new information available since last examination by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee is called to examine this new information with a view to approving the preparation of such a draft.

      Sub-section 6.2 – cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

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

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

    GENERAL QUESTIONS

    a. Adoption of the Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

    Action

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

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

    Action

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

    c. Preparation of the next meeting (871st (10-11 February 2004)) see page 222

    d. Responses in the event of slow or negligent execution or non-execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

    CM(2003)37 revised 3

    Action

    The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this item in particular with a view to making public the Secretariat’s memorandum.

    SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS

    (NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

    (Addendum 1)

    Action

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

    SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

    No new case

    SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

    No new case

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

    No new case

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

    - 1 case against Greece

    H46- 28802 Tsavachidis, judgment of 21/01/99 - Friendly settlement

    SECTION 2 - NEW CASES

    This list has been revised and updated to take account of the new final judgments rendered by the Court as well as those resulting from its recent decisions in respect of requests for referral to the Grand Chamber. Items added since the publication of the Addendum Preparation of the next meeting are indicated by an asterisk (*).

    Cases which are still not final at the time of publishing this document but which could be in time for the 863rd meeting appear on a grey background.

    Action

    The Deputies are invited to hold a first examination, under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the ECHR, of the following new judgments, delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (for further information, see the text of the judgments, http://www.echr.coe.int).

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

    PAYMENT OF JUST SATISFACTION

    In all the new cases in which States should pay just satisfaction as ordered by the Court or as agreed in a friendly settlement, the authorities of the respondent State are invited to provide the Secretariat, in writing, with confirmations of payment.

    INDIVIDUAL AND/OR GENERAL MEASURES

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

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

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

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

    Section 2

    - 4 cases against Austria

    H46- 40016 Karner, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 24/10/2003

    H46- 42032 Widmann, judgment of 19/06/2003, final on 19/09/2003

    H46- 60553 Malek, judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 12/09/2003

    H46- 42484 Royer, judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 12/09/2003

    - 1 case against Belgium

    H46- 33400 Ernst and others, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    - 4 cases against Bulgaria

    H46- 35825 Al Akidi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 35436 Hristov, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 35519 Mihov, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 39269 Kepenerov, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    - 3 cases against Croatia

    H46- 63412 Sahini, judgment of 19/06/2003, final on 19/09/2003

    H46- 60533 Kastelic, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 58112 Multiplex, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    - 1 case against the Czech Republic

    H46- 48568 Schmidtová, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    - 1 case against Finland

    H46- 32559 The Fortum Corporation, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    - 29 cases against France

    H46- 52206 Mokrani, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 49217+ SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 38410+ Fontaine and Bertin, judgment of 08/07/2003, final on 08/10/2003

    H46- 45019 Pascolini, judgment of 26/06/2003, final on 26/09/2003

    H46- 53607 Cohen and Smadja, judgment of 23/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 56616 Hager, judgment of 09/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46- 50344 E.R., judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 51434 Grananta n° 2, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    *H46- 65811 Lemoine Martial, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 49531 Lutz Yves (No. 2), judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    Section 2

        - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H46- 57115 Bouilly, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 63056 Mustafa, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 59153 Plot, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 45256 Richeux, judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 12/09/2003

    H46- 49580 Santoni, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003

    H46- 60955 Seidel, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 46659 Verreries de Biot S.A., judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

    H46- 46820 Zuili, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 46022 Loyen n° 2, judgment of 30/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

        - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts and the Conseil d’Etat

    H46- 61173 Lechoisne and others, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 68155 Poilly, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003

    H46- 57734 Raitière, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 55007 SCI Boumois, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    - Cases of length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 51803 Benmeziane, judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003

    H46- 50632 Coste Pascal, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 52189 Mouesca Jean-Gabriel II, judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003

    H46- 49285 Rablat, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 24/09/2003

        - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

    H46- 50342 Sanglier, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

    H46- 53584 Verhaeghe, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

    - 3 cases against Germany

    H46- 44672 Herz, judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 12/09/2003

    H46- 35968 Van Kuck, judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 12/09/2003

    H46- 57249 Herbolzheimer, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    - 4 cases against Greece

    H46- 55794 Efstathiou and Michaïlidis & Cie Motel Amerika, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 58642 Interoliva Abee, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 58634 Konstantopoulos AE and others, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 41666 Kyrtatos, judgment of 22/05/2003, final on 22/08/2003

    - 2 cases against Hungary

    *H46- 43657 Lévai and Nagy, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 52727 Theiszler, judgment of 30/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    Section 2

    - 1 case against Iceland

    H46- 44671 Arnasson SiguÞór, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    - 1 case against Ireland

    H46- 50389 Doran, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    - 25 cases against Italy

    H46- 52763 Covezzi and Morselli, judgment of 09/05/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 38746 Buffalo Srl en liquidation, judgment of 03/07/2003, final on 03/10/2003

    H46- 56298 Bottaro, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 32190 Luordo, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 25337 Craxi n° 1, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 43522 Grava, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    - Cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

    H46- 66920 Battistoni, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 48842 Carbone Anna, judgment of 22/05/2003, final on 22/08/2003

    H46- 36268 Clucher II, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 33113 D’Ottavi, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 59634 De Gennaro, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 36254 Del Sole, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 63408 Ferroni Rossi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 60464 Fezia and others, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 59454 Gatti and others, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 64151 Kraszewski, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 62020 La Paglia, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 60388 Marigliano, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 58408 Miscioscia, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 58191 Mottola, judgment of 22/05/2003, final on 22/08/2003

    H46- 32385 Ricci Onorato, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 55725 Rosati, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 62000 Tempesti Chiesi and Chiesi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 33692 Traino, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 48730 Voglino, judgment of 22/05/2003, final on 22/08/2003

    *H46- 40453 G.A., judgment of 09/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 63600 Notargiacomo, judgment of 09/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 67076 Santoro, judgment of 02/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 42357 Sartorelli, judgment of 09/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Latvia

    *H46- 48321 Slivenko, judgment of 09/10/2003 - Grand Chamber

    - 1 case against Luxembourg

    H46- 44978 Berlin, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    Section 2

    - 2 cases against the Netherlands

    H46- 39339 M.M., judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 48086 Beumer, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003

    - 14 cases against Poland

    H46- 43425 Skałka, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003, rectified on 16/09/2003

    H46- 31583 Klamecki n° 2, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings199

    H46- 45288 Ciągadlak, judgment of 01/07/2003, final on 01/10/2003

    H46- 53698 Górska, judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003

    H46- 77746 Kroenitz, judgment of 25/02/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 41033 R.W., judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003, rectified on 11/09/2003

    H46- 42078 Sitarek, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003, rectified on 11/09/2003

    H46- 49349 Sobierajska-Nierzwicka, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003, rectified on 11/09/2003

    H46- 33334 Wylęgły J. and J., judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003, rectified on 04/06/2003

    H46- 71621 Chudyba, judgment of 23/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 73009 Górecka, judgment of 23/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 49033 Janowski n° 2, judgment of 23/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 75098 Kledzik, judgment of 23/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 72662 Mazurkiewicz Piotr, judgment of 14/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    - 4 cases against Portugal

    H46- 48206 Maire, judgment of 26/06/2003, final on 26/09/2003

    H46- 54566+ Moreira and Ferreirinha Lda and others, judgment of 26/06/2003, final on 26/09/2003

    H46- 53795 Farinha Martins, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 55340 Sociedade Agrícola do Peral and autre, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    - 8 cases against Romania

    H46- 42930 Crişan, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

    H46- 32926 Canciovici and others, judgment of 26/11/2002, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 36017 Dickmann, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 38445 Erdei and Wolf, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 34647 Ruianu, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 34644 Paulescu, judgment of 10/06/2003, final on 10/09/2003

    H46- 33343 Pantea, judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003

    H46- 38565 Cotlet, judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003

    - 2 cases against the Russian Federation

    H46- 52854 Ryabykh, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 24/10/2003

    H46- 46133+ Smirnova, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 24/10/2003

    Section 2

    - 2 cases against San Marino

    H46- 36451 De Biagi, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    H46- 34657 Forcellini, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

    - 6 cases against the Slovak Republic

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46- 53376 Beňačková, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 72022 Bóna, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 54996 Chovančík, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 60231 Klimek, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 65567 Piskura, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 69145 Sika, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    - 2 cases against Spain

    H46- 68066 Gabarri Moreno, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 62435 Pescador Valero, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    - 1 case against Sweden

    H46- 35179 Allard, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    - 23 cases against Turkey

    H46- 30502 Yiltaş Yıldız Turistik Tesisleri A.Ş., judgment of 24/04/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 20652 Djavit An, judgment of 20/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

    H46- 16219 Demades, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 16163 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

    H46- 28490 Güneş Hulki, judgment of 19/06/2003, final on 19/09/2003

    H46- 29484 Esen, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 29485 Yaz, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 41478 Şen Nuray, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 17/09/2003

    H46- 29422 Tepe Ayşe, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 24209 Y.F., judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 41000 Bektaş, judgment of 23/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 36961 Satık, judgment of 25/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 36203 Temel and others, judgment of 23/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases concerning action of the Turkish security forces

    H46- 26973 Yöyler, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 24/10/2003

    *H46- 42428 Eren and others, judgment of 02/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases concerning freedom of expression

    H46- 27529 Caralan, judgment of 25/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 37048 Demirtaş Nurettin, judgment of 09/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 37059 Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 1, judgment of 02/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 37059+ Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 2, judgment of 02/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 37062 Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 3, judgment of 02/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    Section 2

    - Cases concerning the independence and impartiality of the State security courts

    H46- 45672 Dertli and others, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 50102 Işık, judgment of 05/06/2003, final on 05/09/2003

    H46- 44057 Işık Ôzgür, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 44272 Kaya Orhan, judgment of 05/06/2003, final on 05/09/2003

    H46- 42430 Yüksel Mustafa, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    H46- 40999 Yurtdaş and İnci, judgment of 10/07/2003, final on 10/10/2003

    - Cases concerning the length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 39810 Ramazanoğlu, judgment of 10/06/2003, final on 10/09/2003

    H46- 31879 Değirmenci and others, judgment of 23/09/2003 - Friendly settlement

    *H46- 32984 Alfatli Ali and others, judgment of 02/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

    - 9 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46- 29178 Finucane, judgment of 01/07/2003, final on 01/10/2003

    H46- 39647+ Edwards and Lewis, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

    H46- 39482 Dowsett, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    *H46- 39665 Ezeh and Connors, judgment of 09/10/2003 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 63737 Perry, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    H46- 48015 Easterbrook, judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 12/09/2003

        Interference in private life due to covert police surveillance

    H46- 50015 Hewitson, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

    H46- 63831 Chakley, judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 12/09/2003

    H46- 57836 Mellors, judgment of 17/07/2003, final on 17/10/2003

    SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

    Action

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

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

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

    - 4 cases against Austria

    H46- 36812+ Sylvester, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

    H46- 43454 Bakker, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

    H46- 35021+ Kolb and others, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

    H46- 39392+ L. and V., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    - 10 cases against Belgium

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46- 49497 Teret, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03 - Radiation

    H46- 50567 Immo Fond’Roy S.A., judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings200

    H46- 50855 Dautel, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46- 49522 Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 52229 Gillet, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

    - Default interest to be paid

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

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings201

    H46- 49794 Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 49797 De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 49495 S.A. Sitram, judgment of15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 49546 Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    - 1 case against Croatia

    H46- 47863 Šoć, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 09/08/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    - 6 cases against the Czech Republic

    H46- 46129 Zvolský and Zvolská, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46- 47273 Běleš and others, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46- 36548 Pincová and Pinc, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46- 36541 Bucheň, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

    H46- 41486 Bořánková, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 40226 Červeňáková and others, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Cyprus

    H46- 62242 Gregoriou, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 09/07/03

    - 1 case against Finland

    H46- 52529 Hyvönen, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 55 cases against France

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46- 67263 Mouisel, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 48221 Berger, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 36378 Bertuzzi, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 43716 Susini and others, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46802 Mac Gee, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

    H46- 31520+ Richen and Gaucher, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

    H46- 50528 Coste Thierry, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

    H46- 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgments du 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03202

    H46- 44962 Yvon, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

    H46- 49533 Barrillot, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46- 42405 C.D., judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 44482 Hutt-Claus, judgment of 10/04/2003, final on 10/07/2003

    H46- 50267 Kornblum, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

    H46- 55926 Loyen and others, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

    H46- 43627 Molles, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

    H46- 48566 Richart-Luna, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

    H46- 49198 Schiettecatte, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 09/07/2003

    - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H46- 56927 Appietto, judgment of 25/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

    H46- 54367 Bufferne, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

    H46- 62274 Jarlan, judgment of 15/04/2003, final on 15/07/2003

    H46- 44964 Louerat, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

    H46- 46096 Mocie, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 60545 Perhirin, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 44081 Perhirin and 29 others, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 04/09/2002, revised on 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

    H46- 43543 Loyen René II, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

    H46- 50975 Jarreau, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

    H46- 50331 Julien Ferdinand, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

    H46- 42277 Jussy, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

    - Default interest to be paid

    H32- 25971 Proma di Franco Gianotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)566

    H46- 37971 Sociétés Colas Est, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

    H46- 35683 Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01

    H46- 44069 G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

    H46- 29731 Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

    H32- 31677 Watson John, Interim Resolution DH(2000)20

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

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

    H46- 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber

    H46- 49613 Garon, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43722 Wiot, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

    H46- 43191 Laidin, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03203

    H46- 45172 Fentati, judgment of 22/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

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

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

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

    H46- 41526 Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00 - Friendly settlement

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

    H46- 40096 Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

    - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H46- 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

    H46- 41358 Desmots, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 06/11/02

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

    H46- 51179 Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/02

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

    H46- 42279 Diard, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 48167 Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 47631 Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

    - 4 cases against Greece

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46- 59506 Papageorgiou Georgios, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 09/08/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 61351 Mentis, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Default interest to be paid

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

    H46- 47020 Kolokitha, judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Iceland

    H46- 39731 Sigurđsson, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

    - 350 cases against Italy

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46- 40877 Cordova Agostino No. 1, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46- 45649 Cordova Agostino No. 2, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46- 40601 Guerrera and Fusco, judgment of 03/04/03, revised on 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03204

    H46- 48411 Grasso Armando, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02, revised on 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    - Cases concerning failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants 205

    H46- 38011 Aponte, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 34999 C. Spa, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

    H46- 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46- 45006 Capurso, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

    H46- 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46- 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46- 37117 De Benedittis, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 41427 Del Beato, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

    H46- 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46- 48145 Fabi, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 39735 Fegatelli, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

    H46- 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

    H46- 43580 G.G. VI, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 09/07/2003

    H46- 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 33696 L. and P. II, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 41610 L.M. VII, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

    H46- 36149 Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 42343 Malescia, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

    H46- 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46- 35024 Nigiotti and Mori, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 34998 P.M. II, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 37008 Pannocchia, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 46161 Pepe Giuseppa, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 59539 Pulcini, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 36249 Rosa Massimo, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46- 36377 Zannetti, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

    H46- 62135 Attene, judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 48728 Blasetti, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 53231 Bologna, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 48840 Carloni Tarli, judgment of 30/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 60660 Ferretti Maria Grazia, judgment of 06/03/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 42414 G.G. V, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 35969 Giannatiempo, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 64450 Gianni Francesco, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46471 L.B. and others, judgment of 31/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 55674 Matta, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 60662 Nuti, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 60661 Rogai, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 55673 Savarese, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43616 Tamma, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 54612 Zito and Corsi, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46- 36534 Osu, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

    H46- 28724 Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    H46- 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178206

    H46- 39221+ Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

    Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151207

    - Cases concerning failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants 208

    H46- 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 46079 Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 35997 Candela, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 31928 F. and F., judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 39451 Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 39690 Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

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

    H46- 47895 Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 34714 Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 36734 Visca, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 3.a

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    H32- 39900 Artuso Paolo, Interim Resolution DH(99)569

    H32- 39137 Avallone, Interim Resolution DH(99)475

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    H32- 39121 Bolla, Interim Resolution DH(99)480

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

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

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

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

    H32- 35292 Calandrella F., P. and 2 others, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    H46- 40979 Conte Riccardo II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    H46- 40954 D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 44513 D’Ammassa and Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, revised on 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

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

    H32- 17482 D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

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

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

    H32- 40566 De Cicco Concetta, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

    H32- 40580 De Lorenzi, Interim Resolution DH(99)588

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

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

    H32- 39138 Di Fant I, Interim Resolution DH(99)488

    Sub-section 3.a

    H32- 39139 Di Fant II, Interim Resolution DH(99)489

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

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

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

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

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

    H32- 39906 Emmebiemme S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)592

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    H32- 38145 Focardi and Conti, Interim Resolution DH(99)287

    H46- 46965 Franceschetti and Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32- 38118 Fraschetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)288

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

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

    H32- 38503 G.P. and 25 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)388

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    H46- 46542 Lanino, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H32- 31341 Lazzari and Scagnoli, Interim Resolution DH(97)637

    H46- 45853 Lo Cicero, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H32- 40571 Lo Sardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)606

    H46- 46523 Lonardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46- 46962 Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44406 M. S.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 46961 Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 40978 Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 28725 Manzi A., B. and L., Interim Resolution DH(97)254

    H46- 40956 Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 44443 Marchi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 46957 Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44517 Mari and Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44422 Marzinotto, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 46966 Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 46979 Mastrantonio Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44420 Mauri, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 46973 Morelli and Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44490 Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32- 39872 Nata, Interim Resolution DH(99)617

    H46- 46522 Nolla, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46- 44494 O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44468 P.B. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 40570 Padalino V. and G., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

    H46- 40952 Paderni II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 21707 Panissa, D., G. and A. Vittonetto

    H32- 39155 Perilli and Gigotti Micheli, Interim Resolution DH(99)509

    H46- 45070 Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 44380 Pettirossi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 28936 Piccinini II, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 39899 Pirilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)623

    H46- 45065 Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46967 Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 46969 Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44412 Quattrone Pasquale, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46- 45058 Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 44465 Rigutto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44409 Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 04/07/02

    H46- 43098 Romano, judgment of 28/09/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 35328 Roselli Italo II, Interim Resolution DH(98)440

    H46- 44479 Rosetti e Ciucci and C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46- 44527 Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44472 Rossi Valeria, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44461 Sacchi Roberto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 38135 Sanna, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

    H46- 44466 Santoro Valerio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 47780 Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 45854 Savino, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

    H46- 44419 Sbrojavacca Pietrobon, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 36621 Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

    H46- 44491 Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44470 Spada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

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

    H46- 39705 Spurio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H32- 39865 Staffolani, Interim Resolution DH(99)635

    H46- 44417 Tagliabue, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H32- 38102 Talenti, Interim Resolution DH(2001)58

    H46- 44486 Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44425 Tedesco Michele, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 46539 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. VII, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46- 45068 Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 44488 Vecchi and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44528 Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 44534 Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H32- 40586 Verini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)639

    H46- 40599 Vicari II, judgment of 15/02/00

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 44395 Visentin, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 37166 Vitale and others, judgment of 02/11/99

    H46- 44445 W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 44462 Zanasi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 37079 Zironi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts209

    H46- 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46- 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

    H46- 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46- 41807 Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46- 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46- 41813 Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46- 41812 Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

    H46- 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

    - Cases of length of proceedings before the Court of Audit

    H46- 41823 Pascali and Conte, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 39175 Sileo, Interim Resolution DH(99)524

    - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

    H46- 40363 Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43063 Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 40975 Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43094 C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 42999 Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 36615 Cappello, Interim Resolution DH(99)212

    H32- 38095 Cardillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)317

    H46- 43020 Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46521 Ciccardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46- 42996 Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 44532 Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46- 43088 Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43086 Cosimo Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43087 Cosimo Rotondi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43083 D’Addona Simone, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 43017 D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43059 D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 40960 Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43054 Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43051 Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43062 Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46975 Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 43030 Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43022 Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46978 F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 45855 Fr.C., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46- 43056 Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 51156 Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, rectified on 12/09/02

    H46- 43058 Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43096 G.A. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43093 G.P. VI, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43075 Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 37170 Giampietro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 38975 Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43050 Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43074 Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 39124 Guagenti, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

    H46- 43072 Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43091 Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 42998 Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43101 Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43021 Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43067 Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43065 Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43102 Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43068 Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43095 M.C. X, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43010 Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 37160 Marsicovetere, Interim Resolution DH(99)221

    H46- 43000 Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43018 Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43069 Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43057 Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43064 Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43100 Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43076 P.T. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43012 Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43052 Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43061 Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43060 Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43023 Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46974 Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 43019 Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43055 Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43099 Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43085 Silvio Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 42997 Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43084 Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46960 Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 43016 Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43070 Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43109 Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43015 Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 43066 Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases of length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 38878 Ciacci, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 42351 Del Giudice, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

    H46- 45267 F.R. and 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46- 41603 G.B.Z., L.Z. and S.Z., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 15/02/00

    H46- 41094 Giannangeli, judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01

    H46- 32646 Guerresi, judgment of 24/04/01, final on 24/04/01

    H46- 41893 Martinez, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00210

    H46- 44943 Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 29898 Patanè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    H46- 30132 Pepe Umberto, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

    H32- 24170 Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

    H46- 37118 Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 26806 U.O. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)52

    H32- 26781 U.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)129

    H32- 26782 U.O. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)130

    H46- 43199 Visintin, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    - Cases of length of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

    H46- 45856 Bacigalupi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

    H46- 45857 Comella and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46- 45858 Tesconi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    - 1 case against Latvia

    H46- 58442 Lavents, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

    - 4 cases against the Netherlands

    H46- 34462 Wessels-Bergervoet, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02 and judgment of 12/11/02 (Article 41) - Friendly settlement

    H46- 52750 Lorsé and others, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

    H46- 50901 Van der Ven, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

    H46- 51392 Göçer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03

    - 25 cases against Poland

    H46- 30218 Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03

    H46- 34049 Zwierzynski, judgments du 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 and du 02/07/02, final on 24/06/03211

    H46- 33870 Fuchs, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03212

    H46- 64120 Niziuk, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 74816 Orzeł, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03213

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings214

    H46- 38665 Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03, rectified on 10/07/03

    H46- 58780 Dragan, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 53551 Godlewski, judgment of 08/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46034 Gryziecka and Gryziecki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

    H46- 37437 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46- 76158 M.M. and E.M.M., judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 52168 Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

    H46- 40887 Maliszewski, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 8205 Mikulska, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 71009 Nowakowski, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 51429 Paśnicki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

    H46- 45957 Pawlinkowska, judgment of 08/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 39619 Piłka Andrzej and Barbara, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

    H46- 77597 R.O., judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03

    H46- 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

    H46- 6901 Sagan, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 67162 Skóra, judgment of 01/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 40694 Sobański, judgment of 21/01/03, revised on 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03, rectified on 17/09/03

    H46- 61888 Wysocka-Cysarz, judgment of 01/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Default interest to be paid

    H32- 27506 Owczarzak, Interim Resolution DH(99)260

    - 14 cases against Portugal

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46- 50775 Sousa Marinho and Marinho Meireles Pinto, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

    H46- 54704 Ferreira Pinto, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 54926 Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/03, final on 30/07/03

    H46- 53534 Esteves, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

    H46- 52657 Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

    H46- 51806 Figueiredo Simões, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46- 52412 Marques Nunes, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46- 38830 Czekalla, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46- 44298 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

    H46- 48752 Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 49020 F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 48187 Rosa Marques and others, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

    H46- 48233 Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

    - 18 cases against Romania

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46- 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

    H46- 31804 Chiriacescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    H46- 32936 Drăgnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

    H46- 32977 Găvruş, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

    H46- 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 32915 Ghitescu, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46- 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

    H46- 33176 Moşteanu and others, judgment of 26/11/02, rectified on 04/02/03, final on 26/02/03

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03215

    H46- 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

    H46- 31172 Popa and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46- 33355 Popescu Nata, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

    H46- 33631 Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

    H46- 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

    H46- 32269 Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46- 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01

    (rectification) – Grand Chamber

    H46- 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    - 4 cases against the Slovak Republic

    H46- 41784 A.B., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46- 53372 D.K., judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

    H46- 57983 Slovák, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

    H46- 54822 Micovčin, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 2 cases against Spain

    H46- 56673 Iglesias Gil and A.U.I., judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46- 58496 Prado Bugallo, judgment of 18/02/03, final on 18/05/03

    - 2 cases against Sweden

    H46- 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03216

    H46- 36985 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03217

    - 19 cases against Turkey

    - Just satisfaction to be paid

    H46- 40153+ Çetin and others, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

    - Cases concerning action of the Turkish security forces

    H46- 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03

    H46- 27244 Tepe İsak, judgment of 09/05/03, définitif 19/08/03218

    - Friendly settlements concerning actions of the security forces and containing undertakings by the Turkish Government

    H46- 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 31845 Dilek Kemal, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 3.a

    H46- 32270 Doğan Ülkü and others, judgment of 19/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 42591 Kılıç Özgür, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 28504 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 41926 Sarı Ramazan, judgment of 31/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 28632 Sünnetçi, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 38382 Toktaş, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

    H46- 26546 Acar Ahmet, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46- 37094 Hattatoğlu, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 35983 Gür, judgment of 24/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Cases concerning the independence and impartiality of the State security courts

    H46- 43818 N.K., judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03, rectified on 18/02/03

    H46- 27696 Yalçın Halit, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 28018 Kaya Yusuf, judgment of 24/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Default interest to be paid

    H46- 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99219

    H46- 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 4 cases against Ukraine220

    H46- 41220 Aliev, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46- 40679 Dankevich, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46- 39483 Nazarenko, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46- 41707 Khokhlich, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    - 7 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46- 50390 McGlinchey and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

    H46- 34962 Z.W., judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 36022 Hatton and others, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 53236 Waite, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

    H46- 48539 Allan, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46- 44647 Peck, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

    H46- 44808 Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

    3.b SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST

    SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT

    EXPIRED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

        Some of the cases appearing under this section concern late payment for reasons beyond the control of the governments concerned.

    Expiry date

    of the time-limit set

    - 7 cases against France

    H46- 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02221 21/09/2002

    H46- 38748 Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02 21/09/2002

    H46- 32911+ Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/02 - Grand Chamber 26/10/2002

    H46- 38396 Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02 16/11/2002

    H46- 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02222 25/12/2002

    H46- 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgments du 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and du

    27/05/03, final on 27/08/03 223 02/01/2003

    H46- 33424 Nouhaud and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    - 149 cases against Italy

    H46- 33202 Beyeler, judgments of 05/01/00 (fond) and 28/05/02 (Article 41) 28/08/2002

    H46- 36732 Pisano, judgment of 24/10/02 - Striking-out - Grand Chamber 24/01/2003

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46- 44421 Galasso, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46- 51708 I.M., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

    H46- 51668 Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

    H46- 51672 Selva, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

    H46- 41803 Pupillo, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00; revised judgment

    On just satisfaction of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02 18/06/2002

    H46- 56101 Mesiti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

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

    final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

    H46- 51664 Rodolfi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 41740 Diebold, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46- 44413 Guerrera Angelo Giuseppe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 47479 Mastromauro S.R.L., judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H32- 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673224 22/10/2002

    H46- 56084 At.M., judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02 07/11/2002

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

    revised on 01/10/02, final on 01/01/03 01/04/2003

    Sub-section 3.b

    - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts225

    H46- 44330 Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement 19/03/2001

    H46- 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

    H46- 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

    H46- 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

    H46- 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

    H46- 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46- 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46- 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46- 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46- 44345 Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

    H46- 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02 06/06/2002

    H46- 44333 V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

    H46- 56226 Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56206 Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56208 Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56224 D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

    H46- 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46- 44341 Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 44347 Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 44350 Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 44337 Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 44340 Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 44349 Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 44348 Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 44351 Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    - Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

    H46- 43097 Nicoli, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement 22/09/2000

    H46- 51031 Aceto and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51089 Armellino Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52824 Belviso and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52804 Bianco Pellegrino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    Sub-section 3.b

    H46- 52816 Biondi and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51030 Biondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52835 Cerbo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52801 Ciarmoli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52815 Cimmino and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52807 Ciullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52821 Colangelo Domenico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51164 Crovella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51163 D’Angelo Michele, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51125 De Filippo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51027 Del Vecchio Anna Rita, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51155 Della Ratta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52813 Di Meo and Masotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52846 Di Meo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51092 Di Mezza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51091 Ferrara Clementina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52843 Franco and Basile, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

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

    revised judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03226 12/08/2002

    H46- 51161 Gagliardi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52830 Giannotta and Iannella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51094 Iacobucci and Lavorgna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51170 Izzo Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52802 Lagozzino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52812 Lavorgna and Iorio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52822 Macolino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52819 Mancino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51169 Marotta Alberto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51168 Martino Alfonso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52827 Mastrocinque Mafalda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51167 Matera Tommasina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52845 Mazzarelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52818 Meola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52840 Mongillo Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 44428 Nardone Antonio, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52832 Nero and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51029 Ocone, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51114 Paduano, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52829 Pallotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51022 Palmieri Mario Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52841 Panza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52837 Pascale and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52842 Pascale Elda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52826 Pascale Maria Annunziata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51162 Pengue, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52808 Perna Giuseppina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52828 Petrillo and Petrucci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51025 Petrillo Gino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51024 Porto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52825 Pucella and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    Sub-section 3.b

    H46- 51126 Raccio Emilia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51109 Restuccio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52820 Riccardi Vicenzina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52823 Romano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52844 Romano Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52833 Santagata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51165 Santina Pelosi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 40151 Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52839 Tanzillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52836 Tazza and Zullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52810 Tazza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52809 Truocchio Edmondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51166 Truocchio Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51124 Tudisco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52817 Urbano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51026 Uzzo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52811 Villari, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52847 Viscuso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 51028 Vitelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52814 Zoccolillo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

    H46- 52800 Zuotto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

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

    revised judgment of 18/04/02, final on 18/07/02 18/10/2002

    - Cases of length of proceedings before the Court of Audit

    H46- 54307 Meleddu, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement 21/05/2002

    H46- 54316 Betti, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46- 54293 Chiappetta Domenico, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46- 54287 Ferrari Sergio, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46- 54299 Libertini and Di Girolamo, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46- 44359 Marrama, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46- 54286 Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement 07/08/2002

    H46- 54282 Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46- 54278 Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46- 54312 Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    H46- 54319 Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    - Cases of length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 41424 Nuvoli, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02 16/11/2002

    - Cases of length of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

    H46- 46970 Contardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

    Sub-section 3.b

    - 11 cases against Romania

    H46- 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

    rectified on 09/07/02 09/10/2002

    H46- 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

    final on 21/08/02 21/11/2002

    H46- 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02 04/12/2002

    H46- 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

    H46- 32943 Falcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2002

    H46- 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

    H46- 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

    H46- 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03 22/04/2003

    H46- 29769 Curutiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03 22/04/2003

    H46- 33627 Bărăgan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03 05/05/2003

    - 9 cases against Turkey

    H46- 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00227 15/09/2000

    H46- 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01228 10/04/2001

    H46- 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01 04/07/2001

    H46- 34688 Akin, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/2001

    - Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

    H46- 19279 Göçmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

    H46- 19285 Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

    H46- 19303 Şen Celal and Keziban, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01 10/10/2001

    H46- 27694 A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

    H46- 37087 Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement,

    rectified on 19/09/02 and 03/04/03 27/09/2002

    - 3 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46- 42007 Davies, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02, rectified on 13/09/02 13/12/2002

    H46- 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber 11/10/2002

    H46- 44652 Beckles, judgment of 08/10/02, final on 08/01/03 08/04/2003

    3.c EXAMINATION OF SPECIAL PAYMENT PROBLEMS (FOR EXAMPLE THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE APPLICANT, DISPUTES REGARDING THE EXACT AMOUNT PAID AS A RESULT OF EXCHANGE RATE PROBLEMS OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES)

    - 1 case against France

    H46- 54210 Papon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

    - 1 case against Italy

    H46- 44505 Shipcare S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

    - 28 cases against Turkey

    H46- 30947 Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 26093+ B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01229

    H46- 25182+ Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

    H46- 25724 Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 31963 Özel and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 27697+ Yaşar and others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

    H46- 19310 Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

    H46- 19308 Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

    H46- 39324 Demirel, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

    H46- 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02230

    - Action of the Turkish security forces

    H54- 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H54- 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H54- 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H54- 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H32- 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

    H46- 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02

    - Case concerning freedom of expression

    H46- 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106231

    Table summarising the total number of cases by States

State

No confirmation of payment of the capital sum

(3.a capital sums)

Payment after expiration of the time-limit set and no confirmation of payment of the default interest due

(3.a default interest)

No confirmation of payment of the capital sum although payment due since more than 6 months

(3.b)

Special payment problems

(3.c)

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         

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

    (See Addendum 4 for part or all these cases)

    Action

    The Deputies are invited to supervise the progress made in the adoption of the implementing measures in the following cases raising several problems. Supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will be issued in Addendum 4. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these items on a case-by-case basis.

    SUB-SECTION 4.1 – SUPERVISION OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES ONLY232

    - 3 cases against Germany

    H46- 30943 Sahin, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 52853 Yilmaz Saldiray, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

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

    - 1 case against France

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

    - 4 cases against Italy

    H54- 12151 F.C.B., judgment of 28/08/91, Resolution DH(93)6 and Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)30

    H32- 33286 Dorigo Paolo, Interim Resolutions DH(99)258 and ResDH(2002)30

    H46- 41879 Saggio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

    H46- 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Lithuania

    H46- 41510 Jasiūnienė, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

    - 2 cases against Poland

    H46- 74816 Orzeł, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03233

    H46- 43786 Szymikowska and Szymikowski, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 2 cases against Romania

    H46- 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03234

    H46- 29411 Anghelescu, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

    - 2 cases against Sweden

    H46- 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03235

    H46- 36985 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03236

    - 1 case against Turkey

    H46- 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59

    Sub-section 4.1

    - 3 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46- 29522 I.J.L., G.M.R., and A.K.P., judgment of 19/09/00, final on 19/12/00, and du 25/09/01 (Article 41), final on 25/12/01

    H54- 19187 Saunders, judgment of 17/12/96, Interim Resolution DH(2000)27

    H46- 39846 Brennan, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

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

    - 5 cases against Austria

    H46- 35673 Schweighofer and others, judgment of 09/10/01, final on 09/01/02

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

    H46- 24430 Lanz, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 31/04/02

    H46- 37295 Yildiz M., G. and Y., judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

    H46- 36757 Jakupovic, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/23

    - 13 cases against Belgium

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H46- 50615 Boca, judgment of 15/12/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 50855 Dautel, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03237

    H46- 49797 De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03238

    H46- 49522 Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03239

    H46- 52229 Gillet, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03240

    H46- 50566 Kenes, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 49546 Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03241

    H46- 50624 Gökce and others, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46- 49332 Oren and Shoshan, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 49794 Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03242

    H46- 50172 Randaxhe, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 49495 S.A. Sitram, judgment of15/11/02, final on 15/02/03243

    H46- 50859 Willekens, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

    - 4 cases against Bulgaria

    H46- 50963 Al-Nashif and others, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 38822 Shishkov, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46- 38884 Nikolov, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

    H46- 37104 Kitov, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03244

    - 2 cases against Cyprus

    H46- 30873 Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

    H46- 25316 Denizci and others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01

    - 3 cases against Croatia

    H46- 48778 Kutić, judgment of 01/03/02, final on 01/06/02

    H46- 53176 Mikulić, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 04/09/02

    H46- 62912 Benzan, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 2 cases against Finland

    H46- 27751 K.A., judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

    H46- 27824 Posti and Rahko, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 21/05/03

    - 8 cases against France

    H46- 41376 D.M., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

    H46- 43125 Delbec III, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

    H46- 33395 L.R., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

    H46- 43191 Laidin, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03245

    H32- 33656 Lemoine Daniel, Interim Resolution DH(2000)16

    H46- 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02246

    H46- 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02247

    H46- 49636 Chevrol, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

    - 17 cases against Greece

    H46- 48679 AEPI S.A., judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

    H46- 47760 Koskinas, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 47730 Entreprises Meton and Etep, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

    H46- 40907 Dougoz, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

    H46- 28524 Peers, judgment of 19/04/01

    H46- 46352 Logothetis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01 and du 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

    H46- 48392 Hatzitakis, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

    H46- 46355 Tsirikakis, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 10/07/02 and du 23/01/03, final on /07/03 (Article 41)

    H46- 44584 Tsironis, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

    H46- 55828 Satka and others, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 27/06/03

    H46- 38460 Platakou, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 06/09/01

    H46- 47541 Vasilopoulou, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02 and judgment of 26/09/02

    (Article 41), final on 21/05/03

    H46- 49215 Angelopoulos, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

    H46- 46806 Sakellaropoulos, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

    H46- 53401 Konti-Arvaniti, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

    H46- 50824 Azas, judgment of 19/09/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 52903 Dactylidi, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 09/07/03

    - 1 case against Ireland

    H46- 39474 D.G., judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

    - 75 cases against Italy

    H46- 31127 E.P. III, judgment of 16/11/99, arrêt revised (Article 41) du 03/05/01

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

    H46- 35972 Grande Oriente d'Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

    H32- 23924 C.A.R. srl, Interim Resolution DH(98)154

    H46- 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00248

    Sub-section 4.2

    - Cases concerning the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence

    H54- 15211 Diana Calogero, judgment of 15/11/96, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

    H54- 15943 Domenichini, judgment of 15/11/96, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

    H46- 39920 Di Giovine, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46- 25498 Messina Antonio 2, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

    H46- 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178249

    H46- 31543 Rinzivillo, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

    - Cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

    H46- 22774 Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99

    H46- 22534 A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00

    H32- 20177 Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413 du 17/09/97

    H46- 38011 Aponte, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003250

    H46- 35550 Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 34999 C. Spa, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003251

    H46- 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03252

    H46- 45006 Capurso, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003253

    H46- 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03254

    H46- 34819 Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03255

    H46- 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03256

    H46- 32589 D.V. II, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 37117 De Benedittis, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003257

    H46- 41427 Del Beato, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003258

    H46- 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03259

    H46- 30883 Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 48145 Fabi, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003260

    H46- 39735 Fegatelli, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003261

    H46- 33909 Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 34454 Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 32577 Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03262

    H46- 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03263

    H46- 43580 G.G. VI, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 09/07/2003264

    H46- 22671 G.L. IV, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

    H46- 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03265

    Sub-section 4.2

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

    H46- 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03266

    H46- 32006 Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03267

    H46- 32766 Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 32392 L. and P. I, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 33696 L. and P. II, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03268

    H46- 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03269

    H46- 41610 L.M. VII, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003270

    H46- 36149 Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003271

    H46- 21463 Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

    H46- 32391 M.C. XI, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 31923 M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 42343 Malescia, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003272

    H46- 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03273

    H46- 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03274

    H46- 31129 Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 35024 Nigiotti and Mori, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003275

    H46- 24650 P.M. I, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 5/09/01

    H46- 34998 P.M. II, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003276

    H46- 15919 Palumbo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

    H46- 37008 Pannocchia, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003277

    H46- 46161 Pepe Giuseppa, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003278

    H46- 59539 Pulcini, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003279

    H46- 36249 Rosa Massimo, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003280

    H46- 30530 Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 32644 Sanella, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03281

    H46- 33227 Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 31223 T.C.U., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 23424 Tanganelli, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

    H46- 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03282

    H46- 33252 Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03283

    H46- 30972 V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

    H46- 36377 Zannetti, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003284

    H46- 35006 Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 2 cases against Luxembourg

    H46- 51773 Schaal, judgment of 18/02/03, final on 18/05/03

    H46- 51772 Roemen and autre, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 25/05/03

    - 1 case against the Netherlands

    H46- 35731 Venema, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

    - 13 cases against Poland

    H46- 34049 Zwierzynski, judgments du 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 and du 02/07/02, final on 24/06/03285

    H46- 26229 Gawęda, judgment of 14/03/02

    H46- 28249 Kreuz, judgment of 19/06/01

    H46- 25196 Iwánczuk, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

    H46- 33870 Fuchs, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03286

    H46- 30210 Kudła, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 37443 Lisiak, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    CM/Inf(2003)42

    - Cases of length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 25792 Trzaska, judgment of 11/07/00

    H46- 33492 Jabłoński, judgment of 21/12/00

    H46- 33079 Szeloch, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

    H46- 27504 Iłowiecki, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

    H46- 28358 Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00

    H46- 34097 Kreps, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46- 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

    - 2 cases against Romania

    H46- 28871 Constantinescu, judgment of 27/06/00

    H46- 31679 Ignaccolo-Zenide, judgment of 25/01/00

    - 1 case against the Russian Federation

    H46- 59498 Burdov, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 04/09/02

    - 2 cases against the Slovak Republic

    H46- 32106 Komanický, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

    H46- 47227 Baková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 21/05/03

    - 1 case against Spain

    H46- 45238 Perote Pellon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 35 cases against Turkey

    H46- 36590 Göç Mehmet, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 11/07/02

    H46- 27244 Tepe İsak, judgment of 09/05/03, définitif 19/08/03287

    - 25 cases concerning freedom of expression

    (Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106)

    CM/Inf(2003)43

    H46- 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01288

    H46- 23462 Arslan, judgment of 08/07/99

    H32- 25658 Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolution DH(99)560 du 08/10/99

    H46- 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99289

    H46- 27214 C.S.Y., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    H46- 23556 Ceylan, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 28496 E.K., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46- 25067+ Erdoğdu and Ince, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00290

    H46- 24919 Gerger, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 27215+ Gökçeli Yaşar Kemal, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    H54- 22678 Inçal, judgment of 09/06/98

    H46- 33179 Karataş Seher, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H46- 23168 Karataş, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 28493 Küçük Yalçın, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

    H46- 24246 Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00291

    H46- 24914 Öztürk Ayşe, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

    H46- 22479 Öztürk, judgment of 28/09/99

    H46- 23500 Polat, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00

    H46- 23927+ Sürek and Özdemir, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 24122 Sürek II, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 24762 Sürek IV, judgment of 08/07/99

    H46- 29590 Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

    - 8 friendly settlements in cases concerning freedom of expression and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

    Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

    CM/Inf(2003)43

    H46- 32985 Altan, judgment of 14/05/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 27307 Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 37721 Erkanlı, judgment of 13/02/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 35076 Erol Ali, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 27209+ Kiliç Özcan, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 25753 Özler, judgment of 11/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 32455 Zarakolu, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 4.2

    - 6 cases against Ukraine

    H46- 41220 Aliev, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03292

    H46- 40679 Dankevich, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03293

    H46- 41707 Khokhlich, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03294

    H46- 39042 Kuznetsov, judgment of 29/04/03

    H46- 39483 Nazarenko, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03295

    H46- 38812 Poltoratskiy, judgment of 29/04/03

    - 12 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46- 46295 Stafford, judgment of 28/05/02 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 37555 O'Hara, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

    H46- 40787 Hirst, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

    H46- 24833 Matthews, judgment of 18/02/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution DH(2001)79

    H46- 30668 Wilson & the National Union of Journalists, Palmer, Wyeth & the National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport workers, Doolan and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

    H46- 33394 Price, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

    H46- 27229 Keenan, judgment of 03/04/01

    H46- 56547 P., C. and S., judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

    H46- 38719 D.P. and J.C, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46- 29392 Z. and others, judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 33218 E. and others, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46- 49771 Jordan Stephen n° 2, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

    - 1 case against « the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »

    H46- 58185 Janeva, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

    - 119 cases against Italy

    H46- 39221+ Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

    Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151296

        - 118 Italian cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings before administrative courts297

    (see also, for more detailed information, CM/Inf(99)37, CM/Inf(2000)40, CM/Inf(2000)40

    Addendum, CM/Inf(2001)37 ; Interim Resolutions DH(99)436 and ResDH(2000)135

    H46- 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

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

    H32- 29171 Abbate Giovani, Interim Resolution DH(97)367

    H54- 25587 Abenavoli, judgment of 02/09/97

    H46- 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H32- 26863 Almanno, Interim Resolution DH(96)611

    H46- 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H32- 25579 B.Q., Interim Resolution DH(96)213

    H32- 26864 Bacci Roberto Maria, Interim Resolution DH(96)612

    H32- 25585 Bagnoli and Mazzone G., A. and M., Interim Resolution DH(96)214

    H32- 34878 Barcellona, Interim Resolution DH(99)202

    H32- 35343 Bertozzi, Vorrasi, Ciarmoli and Forgione, Interim Resolution DH(99)642

    H32- 27189 Bevilacqua, Interim Resolution DH(97)524

    H46- 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

    H46- 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H46- 44341 Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H46- 44347 Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H32- 19977 Carriero, Interim Resolution DH(96)26

    H32- 31628 Catania, Interim Resolution DH(99)414

    H32- 25576 Cavaliero s.n.c., Interim Resolution DH(96)215

    H32- 34882 Cecamore, Interim Resolution DH(99)203

    H46- 44332 Cecchini, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

    H46- 44350 Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

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

    H32- 29170 Cerruto, Interim Resolution DH(97)368

    H32- 29125 Chierici B. and E., Interim Resolution DH(97)331

    H46- 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

    H46- 41811 Comitini, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

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

    H32- 27494 Corona Vincenzo, Interim Resolution DH(97)020

    H32- 25577 Cosma, Interim Resolution DH(96)216

    H32- 25588 D.M. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)217

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

    H32- 27996+ D'Amico and Altobelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)130

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

    H54- 25574 De Santa, judgment of 02/09/97

    H32- 20359 Della Sala Raffaele, Interim Resolution DH(96)614

    H46- 44337 Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

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

    Sub-section 4.3

    H32- 14147+ Di Bonaventura

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

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

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

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

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

    H46- 44349 Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H32- 30600 G. D.P., Interim Resolution DH(97)525

    H32- 25584 G.L.C., Interim Resolution DH(96)218

    H32- 31622 G.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)654

    H46- 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

    H46- 44340 Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

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

    H32- 25580 Giorgini, Interim Resolution DH(96)219

    H54- 25586 Lapalorcia, judgment of 02/09/97

    H32- 25581 Latini, Interim Resolution DH(96)220

    H46- 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

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

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

    H32- 15080 Magnaghi, Interim Resolution DH(96)379

    H32- 27994+ Manzini and Benet, Interim Resolution DH(97)129

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

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

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

    H32- 38149 Mazzone G. and E. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)306

    H32- 38150 Mazzone G. and E. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)307

    H46- 33804 Mennitto, judgment of 05/10/00

    H32- 25589 Mentastro, Interim Resolution DH(96)221

    H46- 38594 Mereu and S. Maria Navarrese, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

    H46- 44338 Miele, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

    H46- 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H32- 17814 Mori Puddu, Interim Resolution DH(97)177

    H46- 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H32- 38526 Murgo M, O, and S. and Giannone, Interim Resolution DH(99)415

    H32- 30322 Nani, Interim Resolution DH(98)193

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

    H46- 44348 Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H54- 25839 Nicodemo, judgment of 02/09/97

    H46- 44335 O., judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

    H32- 18908 P.P. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)111

    H46- 44351 Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

    H32- 35950+ Paglietti and 126 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)99

    H46- 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    H32- 15800+ Perego and Romanet

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

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

    H32- 34880 Polto Miranda, Interim Resolution DH(99)204

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

    H46- 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

    H32- 27493 Recinelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)21

    H32- 27999+ Recinelli and Corona, Interim Resolution DH(97)132

    Sub-section 4.3

    H32- 27997 Ridolfi, Interim Resolution DH(97)131

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

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

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

    H32- 26865+ Rubbo and others, Interim Resolution DH(96)613

    H32- 34881 Ruocco, Interim Resolution DH(99)643

    H32- 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673

    H32- 25582 Sansoni, Interim Resolution DH(96)222

    H32- 31625 Santoro Claudio, Interim Resolution DH(97)655

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

    H32- 29672 Scopelliti II, Interim Resolution DH(97)469

    H32- 27484+ Serino and others, Interim Resolution DH(97)133

    H32- 25450 Spera Michele, Interim Resolution DH(97)372

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

    H32- 34283 Stampacchia, Interim Resolution DH(98)272

    H32- 25583 Stracuzzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)241

    H32- 25578 Turrina and Scattolini, Interim Resolution DH(96)223

    H32- 31620 U. P., Interim Resolution DH(97)656

    H32- 38152 Ullo, Interim Resolution DH(99)308

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

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

    H32- 29301 Vitali II, Interim Resolution DH(97)332

    H32- 29302 Vitali III, Interim Resolution DH(97)333

    H32- 39170 Zappalà, Interim Resolution DH(99)523

    H46- 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

    - 2 cases against Turkey

    H46- 25781 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

    CM/Inf(2003)14 Revised 3

    H46- 26308 Institut de Prêtres français and others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement - Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)173

    - 1 case against Ukraine

    H46- 48553 Sovtransavto Holding, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 06/11/02 and of 02/10/2003, final on 02/01/2004298 (Article 41)

    - 1 case against the United Kingdom

    H54- 25599 A., judgment of 23/09/98

    CM/Inf(2003)22

    SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

    (See Addendum 5 for part or all these cases)

    Action

    The Deputies are invited to supervise progress in the adoption of general measures aiming at preventing further similar violations to those found by the Court in the following cases. If necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in Addendum 5. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases in 6 months at the latest.

    SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES

    - 7 cases against Austria

    H46- 33730 Weixelbraun, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    H54- 20602 Szücs, judgment of 24/11/97

    H46- 28923 Lamanna, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

    H54- 21835 Werner, judgment of 24/11/97

    H46- 28389 Asan Rushiti, judgment of 21/03/00, final on 21/06/00

    H46- 35437 Demir, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46- 38549 Vostic, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

    - 3 cases against Belgium

    H46- 34989 Goedhart, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

    H46- 36449+ Stroek L. and C., judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

    H46- 26103 Van Geyseghem, judgment of 21/01/99 – Grand Chamber

    - 3 cases against Bulgaria

    H46- 30985 Hassan and Tchaouch, judgment of 26/10/00- Grand Chamber

    H46- 40061 M.S., judgment of 04/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 31365 Varbanov, judgment of 05/10/00

    - 1 case against France

    H46- 39288 Association Ekin, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01

    - 1 case against Luxembourg

    H46- 38432 Thoma, judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

    - 1 case against Moldova

    H46- 45701 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 27/03/02

    - 1 case against the Netherlands

    H46- 37328 A.B., judgment of 29/01/02, final on 29/04/02

    - 42 cases against Poland

    H46- 26760 Werner, judgment of 15/11/01

    Sub-section 5.1

    - Cases of length of civil proceedings

    H54- 27916 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98

    H54- 28616 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98

    H46- 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

    H46- 38665 Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03, rectified on 10/07/03299

    H46- 27918 C., judgment of 03/05/01

    H46- 45288 Ciągadlak, judgment of 01/07/2003, final on 01/10/2003300

    H32- 24559 Gibas, Interim Resolution DH(97)242

    H46- 48001 Goc, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

    H46- 53698 Górska, judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003301

    H46- 29695 Gronuś, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

    H46- 46034 Gryziecka and Gryziecki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03302

    H46- 71891 Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

    H46- 29691 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

    H46- 52518 Koral, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 77746 Kroenitz, judgment of 25/02/2003, final on 24/09/2003303

    H46- 37437 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03304

    H46- 43779 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02

    H46- 52168 Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03305

    H46- 35843 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01

    H46- 40887 Maliszewski, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03306

    H46- 36250 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02

    H46- 51429 Paśnicki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03307

    H46- 40330 Piechota, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46- 39619 Piłka Andrzej and Barbara, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03308

    H46- 29455 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46- 77597 R.O., judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03309

    H46- 41033 R.W., judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003, rectified on 11/09/2003310

    H46- 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03311

    H46- 37645 Sawicka, judgment of 01/10/02, final on 01/01/03

    H46- 42078 Sitarek, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003, rectified on 11/09/2003312

    H46- 40694 Sobański, judgment of 21/01/03, revised on 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03, rectified on 17/09/03313

    H46- 25693+ Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01

    H46- 49349 Sobierajska-Nierzwicka, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003, rectified on 11/09/2003314

    H46- 40835 Szarapo, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46- 48684 Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

    H46- 39505 W.M., judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

    Sub-section 5.1

    H46- 65660 W.Z., judgment of 24/10/02, final on 24/01/03

    H46- 32734 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01

    H46- 33082 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01

    H46- 33334 Wylęgły J. and J., judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003, rectified on 04/06/2003315

    H46- 34158 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

    - 1 case against Romania

    H54- 27053 Vasilescu, judgment of 22/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)676

    - 1 case against Switzerland

    H46- 31827 J.B., judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01

    - 1 case against Turkey

    H54- 18954 Zana, judgment of 25/11/97

    - 9 cases against the United Kingdom

    H54- 22520 Johnson Stanley, judgment of 24/10/97

    H46- 30308 Faulkner Ian, judgment of 30/11/99 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 25594 Hashman and Harrup, judgment of 25/11/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 26494 J.T., judgment of 30/03/00 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 23496 Quinn, Interim Resolutions DH(98)214 and ResDH(2002)85

    H32- 22384 Murray Kevin, Interim Resolutions DH(98)156 and ResDH(2002)85

    H46- 28135 Magee, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)85

    H54- 18731 Murray John, judgment of 08/02/96, Interim Resolutions DH(2000)26 and ResDH(2002)85

    H46- 36408 Averill, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)85

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

    - 1 case against France

    H46- 33592 Baumann, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

    - 1 case against Poland

    H46- 29692+ R.D., judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

    SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

    (NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

    - 1 case against Finland

    H46- 37801 Suominen, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 22/07/03316

    - 2 cases against France

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

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

    - 1 case against Greece

    H46- 37095 Pialopoulos and others, judgments du 15/02/01, final on 27/06/02 and du 15/05/01, final on 06/11/2002 (Article 41)

    - 1 case against Italy

    H46- 43269 Leoni, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 04/04/01

    - 1 case against Turkey

    H46- 37021 Avcı Zeynep, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 09/07/03

        SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

        No new case

    SECTION 6 - CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION:

    (See Addendum 6 for part or all these cases)

    Action

    At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the information available on the measures taken in these cases seemed to allow the preparation of draft resolutions putting an end to their examination by the Committee of Ministers (if necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in Addendum 6). As regards the cases appearing under sub-section 6.1, the Deputies are invited to examine the new information available with a view to evaluating whether a draft final resolution can be prepared. As regards cases listed under sub-section 6.2, the Deputies are invited to note that the elaboration of a draft final resolution, in cooperation with the Delegation of the respondent State, is under way. In both cases, the Deputies are invited to postpone consideration of these cases to their next meeting.

    Sub-section 6.1

    Cases in which the new information available since the last examination appears to allow the preparation of a draft final resolution

    - 1 case against Greece

    H46- 50776+ Agga n° 2, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

    - 1 case against Estonia

    H46- 37571 Veeber, n° 1, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

    - 1 case against the Netherlands

    H46- 25989 Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

    - 3 cases against Norway

    H46- 30287 Hammern, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

    H46- 29327 O., judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

    H46- 56568 Y., judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

    - 2 cases against San Marino

    H46- 24954 Tierce and others, judgment of 25/07/00

    H46- 35396 Stefanelli, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

    - 2 cases against Switzerland

    H54- 20919 E.L., R.L. and O.-L., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)111

    H54- 19958 A.P., M.P. and T.P., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)110

    - 1 case against the United Kingdom

    H46- 32771 Cuscani, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

    Sub-section 6.2

    Cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

    - 23 cases against Austria

    H46- 36519 Petschar, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 45330+ S.L., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

    H46- 34994 Walter, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H32- 17291 Hortolomei, Interim Resolution DH(99)28

    H46- 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

    H46- 38237 Sailer, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

    H46- 38275 W.F., judgment of 30/05/02, final on 30/08/02

    H32- 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H., Interim Resolution DH(98)378

    H46- 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

    H46- 30428 Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01

    H46- 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

    H46- 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

    H46- 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

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

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46- 49455 Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

    H46- 33505 H.E., judgment of 11/07/02, final on 06/11/02

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

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H46- 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

    H46- 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

    H46- 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    H46- 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

    H46- 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

    - Freedom of expression

    H54- 15153 Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Berthold Gubi, judgment of 19/12/94

    - 2 cases against Belgium

    H54- 17849 S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera and others, judgment of 20/11/95, Interim Resolution DH(99)724

    H54- 25357 Aerts, judgment of 30/07/98

    - 3 cases against Bulgaria

    H32- 30381 Mironov, Interim Resolution DH(99)352

    H46- 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 29221 Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

    - 1 case against Cyprus

    H46- 29515 Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

    Sub-section 6.2

    - 4 cases against the Czech Republic

    H46- 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 33644 Cesky, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

    H46- 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

    H46- 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

    - 2 cases against Denmark

    H46- 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 56811 Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

    - 9 cases against Finland

    H46- 31611 Nikula, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

    H46- 49684 Hirvisaari, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

    H46- 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

    H46- 31764 K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01

    H46- 29346 K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46- 25702 K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber

    H46- 30013 Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

    H46- 35999 Pietiläinen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 27/01/03

    H46- 42059 Eerola, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 76 cases against France

    H46- 34000 DuRoy and Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

    H46- 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

    H32- 26242 Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353

    H32- 31409 Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557

    H46- 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

    H46- 24846 Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

    H32- 26984 Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30

    H46- 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

    H46- 25088 Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99

    H54- 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

    H32- 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I

    H54- 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

    H32- 27413 Cazes, Interim Resolution DH(99)31

    H46- 25444 Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

    H46- 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

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

    H32- 27659 Ferville, Interim Resolution DH(99)254

    H32- 28845 Venot, Interim Resolution DH(2000)19

    H46- 29507 Slimane-Kaïd II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00

    H46- 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

    H54- 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

    H32- 17572 A.C.

    H54- 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

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

    Sub-section 6.2

    H46- 53613 Goth, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

    H54- 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

    H46- 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

    H32- 20282 G.B. I

    H32- 23321 Delbec I, Interim Resolution DH(98)15

    - Length of civil proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H54- 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

    H54- 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

    H54- 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

    H54- 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

    H46- 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

    H32- 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V, Interim Resolution DH(98)388

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

    H46- 40493 Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    H46- 42276 Julien Lucien, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03

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

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

    H46- 43288 Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01

    H32- 25309 Maljean, Interim Resolution DH(97)239

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

    H46- 51575 Baillard, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 04/09/02

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

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

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Conseil d’Etat

    H46- 38249 Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

    H46- 28660 Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01

    H46- 33207 Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

    H46- 36932 Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99

    H46- 42401 Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01

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

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

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

    H46- 54596 Epoux Goletto, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

    H46- 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00

    H46- 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

    H46- 44066 Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46- 41001 Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

    H46- 37387 Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

    H46- 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 10/07/02

    H32- 32510 Peter, Interim Resolution DH(99)132

    H46- 33989 Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

    H46- 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

    H32- 39966 De Cantelar, Interim Resolution DH(2000)86

    H46- 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

    Sub-section 6.2

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

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

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 33951 Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00

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

    - 7 cases against Germany

    H46- 38365 Thieme, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 34045 Hoffmann, judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02

    H46- 37928 Stambuk, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

    H46- 45835 Hesse-Anger, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 44324 Kind, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

    H46- 39547 Niederböster, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

    H46- 33900 P.S., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 04/09/02

    - 46 cases against Greece

    H46- 47734 Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

    H46- 46356 Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

    H54- 19233+ Tsirlis and Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

    H54- 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

    H54- 23372+ Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98

    H54- 18748 Manoussakis and others, judgment of 25/09/96

    H46- 38178 Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

    H46- 34369 Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

    H46- 38703 Agoudimos and Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

    H46- 37098 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 21/03/00

    H54- 21522 Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

    H46- 41209 Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    H32- 34373 Goutsos, Interim Resolution DH(99)558

    H54- 18357 Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

    H46- 31107 Iatridis, judgments des 25/03/99 and 19/10/00 (Article 41) – Grand Chamber

    H46- 53478 Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

    H32- 32397 Sinnesael, Interim Resolution DH(99)130

    H46- 43622 Malama, judgments du 01/03/01, final on 05/09/01 and du 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

    H46- 25701 Former king of Greece, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini, judgments of 23/11/00 and of 28/11/02 (Article 41) - Grand Chamber

    H46- 64825 Halatas, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46- 30342 Academy Trading Ltd and others, judgment of 04/04/00

    H46- 40434 Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

    H46- 56625 Koumoutsea, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

    H46- 46380 LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

    H46- 52464 Papadopoulos Georgios, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 21/05/03

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

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

    H46- 41459 Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

    H46- 41867 Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

    Sub-section 6.2

    H54- 20323 Pafitis and others, judgment of 26/02/98

    H46- 38971 Protopapa and Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    H46- 38704 Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

    H32- 34569 Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique, commerciale et touristique, Interim Resolution DH(99)271

    H46- 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

    H46- 40437 Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

    H46- 38459 Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

    H46- 55611 Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 04/09/02

    H46- 62530 Vitaliotou, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 37439 Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

    H46- 56599 Ipsilanti, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

    H46- 52848 Papadopoulos Ioannis, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 55753 Papazafiris, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

    H54- 19773 Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

    H54- 28523 Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

    H32- 32857 Stamoulakatos Nicholas I, Interim Resolution DH(99)49

    H32- 24453 Tarighi Wageh Dashti

    - 10 cases against Italy

    H46- 33993 Messina No. 3, judgment of 24/10/02, final on 21/05/03

    H46- 41221 Troiani Marcello II, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02

    H32- 27253 Biasetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)356

    H46- 44955 Mancini Vittorio and Luigi, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

    H46- 31227 Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

    H32- 16609 Intrieri, Interim Resolution DH(97)50

    H54- 14025 Zubani, judgments des 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

    H46- 34896 Craxi II, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

    - Failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

    H46- 37888 Cecchi Ida, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 34435 Di Tullio, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 1 case against Latvia

    H46- 50108 Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

    - 10 cases against Lithuania

    H46- 48297 Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

    H46- 37975 Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

    H46- 36743 Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

    H46- 34578 Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

    H46- 47679 Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

    H46- 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01

    H46- 44558 Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

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

    H46- 55479 Slezevicius, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

    H46- 47698 Birutis and others, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    Sub-section 6.2

    - 3 cases against Malta

    H46- 25642 Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 25644 T.W., judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 35892 Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

    - 9 cases against the Netherlands

    H46- 32605 Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

    H46- 31465 Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

    H32- 14084 R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

    H46- 28369 Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

    H46- 29192 Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

    H46- 31725 Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 33258 Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 34549 Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

    H46- 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

    - 11 cases against Poland

    H46- 27785 Włoch, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 22/01/01

    H46- 29537+ Radaj, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

    H46- 35489 Sałapa, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

    H46- 31382 Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

    H46- 38670 Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

    H46- 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 24244 Migoń, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

    H46- 32499 Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 25874 Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

    H46- 55106 Górka, judgment of 05/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 67165 Sędek, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    - 9 cases against Portugal

    H46- 49671 Ferreira da Nave, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

    H46- 29813+ Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcao and others, judgments du 11/01/00 and 10/04/01

    H46- 37698 Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

    H54- 15777 Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

    H46- 33290 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

    H46- 53793 Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 49279 Koncept-Conselho em Comunicação e Sensibilização de Públicos, Lda, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

    H46- 53937 Ferreira Alves, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

    H46- 48956 Gil Leal Pereira, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

    - 1 case against Romania

    H32- 32922 C.C.M.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)333

    Sub-section 6.2

    - 21 cases against the Slovak Republic

    H46- 24530 Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

    H46- 29032 Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

    H46- 32686 Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

    H46- 41384 Varga, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of civil proceedings

    H46- 34753 Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

    H46- 40058 Gajdúšek, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

    H46- 47804 Havala, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46- 39752 Matoušková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    H46- 48672 Nemec and others, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

    H46- 40345 Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

    H46- 44965 Molnárová and Kochanová, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

    H46- 38794 J.K., judgment of 23/07/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 62171 Lancz, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 41783 Polovka, judgment of 21/01/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 46843 Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 65640 Rotrekl, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 63999 Rusnáková, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 56452 Nezbeda, judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 62191 Sisák, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 57985 Slovák II, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 43377 Žiačik, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

    - 2 cases against Slovenia

    H46- 29462 Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

    H46- 28400 Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

    - 11 cases against Switzerland

    H46- 41202 Müller, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

    H46- 33958 Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

    H46- 27798 Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

    H54- 23224 Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

    H46- 54273 Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

    H46- 33499 Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

    H46- 27426 G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

    H46- 28256 M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

    H46- 27154 D.N., judgment of 29/03/01 - Grand Chamber

    H32- 27613 P.B., Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)83

    H54- 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678

    - 127 cases against Turkey

    H46- 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00

    H46- 30944 Öcal, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 29295+ Ecer and Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

    H46- 34686 Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    Sub-section 6.2

    H46- 29495 Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

    H46- 24932 Kaplan, judgment of 26/02/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 24669 Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 31249 Gündüz and others, judgment of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 25144 Sadak Selim and others, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 06/11/02

    - Independence and impartiality of the State security courts

    H46- 42739 Özel Yaşar, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

    H46- 29851 Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

    H46- 41316 Atça and others, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

    H46- 59659 Özdemir Tekin, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

    - Action of the Turkish security forces

    H46- 31882 Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 24947 Ekinci Lalihan, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 31849 İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 24937 Koç Fırat, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 24933 Kürküt, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 31733 Tuncay and Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 28011 Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    - Length of the detention on remand / on custody

    H46- 29863 Barut, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 34481 Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 31850 Günay and others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

    H46- 31877 Gündoğan Halil, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46- 29296 İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 29862 Bağci and Murğ, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 32450 Çaloğlu, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 31896 Değerli, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 29866+ Demir C., Demir M. and Gül, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 29883+ Fidan, Çağro and Özarslaner, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 31787 Göktaş and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 28013+ Karatepe and Kırt, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 34499 Kortak, judgment of 31/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 36971 Kuray, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 31895 Morsümbül, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 30495 Mutlu and Yildiz, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 28014+ Okuyucu, Kara and Bilmen, judgment of 17/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 30453 Özata and others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 29425 Özçelik and others, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 36760 Şanlı and Erol, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 37191 Yildirim and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 34684 Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 35980 Z.E., judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 25756 Dalkılıç, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

    H46- 24737+ Satık, Camlı, Satık and Maraşlı, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

    - Delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

    H46- 19265 Atak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19660 Çalkan Dudu, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46- 20140 Çelebi Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46- 20144 Kartal Adile, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46- 20152 Özen Mehmet, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    Sub-section 6.2

    H46- 20151 Öztürk Ahmet, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46- 20155 Şen Aziz No. 2, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

    H46- 19264 Aktaş and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H32- 22907 Atatür A. and M., and Pamir, Interim Resolution DH(2000)84

    H46- 19266 Baltekin Rıza, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 20132 Bilgin Burhan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 20133 Bilgin Leyli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 19267 Bilgin Mehmet and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 20134 Bilgin Münir, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 19268 Bilgin Saniye and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19269 Bozkurt and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19272 Çalkan and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 20136 Canlı, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 19273 Çapar, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19274 Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19275 Çelebi Yusuf, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 20139 Çelebi Mehmet n° 3, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46- 19276 Çiplak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19277 Daniş, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 68117 Denli Nesibe, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 23/10/02

    H46- 19278 Erol, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19280 Gökgöz, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19281 Gökmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 20142 Günal Kazım, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 19270 Ilhan Buzcu and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 20143 İnce Fehmiye, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

    H46- 19283 Işik Ayşe and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19284 Işik Yilmaz and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19286 Karabulut Sefer, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19271 Nuriye Buzcu, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 30448 Önel Ahmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46- 30948 Önel Mehmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46- 30446 Önel Temur, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46- 30447 Özel Hacı Bayram, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46- 31964 Özel Hacı Osman, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

    H46- 19287 Özen, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 19288 Öztekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

    H46- 20153 Şen Ismet, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 20156 Şen Kemal, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 20154 Şen Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 20158 Taşdemir Mehmet n° 2, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

    H46- 38916 Atalağ, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 38915 Bayram Abdullah Naci, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 35867 Bayram and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 37414 Birsel and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 26543 Çallı, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 38931 İ.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 35050 Karabıyık and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 33322 Özdiler and Bakan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 33419 Özdiler Hasan Doğan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 35079 Özkan and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    H46- 35866 Ünlü Dudu, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

    - Length of criminal proceedings

    H46- 31880 Adıyaman, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 32964 Akçam, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 33362 Akyazı, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    Sub-section 6.2

    H46- 29280 Başpınar, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 29913 Binbir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46- 26480 Bürkev, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 29912 Çilengir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46- 32981 Dede and others, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

    H46- 29699 Dinleten, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46- 31891 Genç, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 39428 İnan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 28291 Kanbur, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 32990 Karademir, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 32987 Keskin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 29360 Ketenoğlu Gülşen and Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

    H46- 29700 Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46- 29701 Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46- 31960 Pekdaş, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 31961 Şahin Metin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

    H46- 29702 Sarıtaç, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46- 29911 Uygur, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    H46- 31834 Yağız Hasan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

    H46- 29703 Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

    - Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

    H46- 29921 Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

    - 23 cases against the United Kingdom

    H46- 39393 M.G., judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

    H46- 39197 Foley, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

    H46- 36533 Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

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

    H46- 48521 Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

    H46- 24724 T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 24888 V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 45276 Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

    H54- 24839 Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

    H32- 26109 Santa Cruz Ruiz, Interim Resolution DH(99)

    H46- 28901 Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

    H46- 35718 Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

    H46- 33274 Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

    H46- 39360 S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

    H54- 20605 Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Résolution Intérimaire DH(1999)725

    H46- 36670 Duyonov and others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

    H46- 32340 Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

    H46- 28945 T.P. and K.M., judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

    H46- 37471 William Faulkner, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

    H46- 52770 Brown, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

    - Interference in private life due to covert police surveillance

    H46- 35394 Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

    H32- 27237 Govell, Interim Resolution DH(98)212

    H46- 44787 P.G. and J.H., judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

    H46- 47114 Taylor-Sabori, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

    PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
    (871st MEETING, 10-11 February 2004)

(See Addendum Preparation of the next meeting)

Action

The Deputies are invited to approve the preliminary lists of items to be examined at the next DH meeting, which appears in Addendum Preparation of the next meeting to the present annotated agenda and order of business.

1 Following a decision taken by the Deputies on 26 February 2001 these Rules are also applicable to the control of execution of cases decided by the Committee of Ministers itself under the former Article 32 of the Convention or transmitted to the Committee by the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to former Article 54 of the Convention (as worded before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 on 1 November 1998).

2 Certain cases may be registered in two different sections.

3 Cases decided by the Committee itself under the former Article 32 of the Convention (the last decision on a violation of the Convention pursuant to this procedure was taken at the 741st meeting in February 2001).

4 The parties declared, by letter dated 4 July and 22 July, that they would not refer this case to the Grand Chamber.

5 These cases also appear in Sub-section 5.1

6 Of which four years and ten months elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

7 Of which eight years and nine months elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

8 Of which six years and two months elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

9 Of which nine years and ten months elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

10 Of which nine years and eleven months elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

11 Of which nine years and eleven months elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

12 Of which seven years and nine months elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

13 Of which eight years and seven months elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

14 These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

15 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

16 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

17 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b for one part of the just satisfaction.

18 These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

19 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

20 These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

21 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.2

22 The time-limit for payment has not yet expired in respect of Ms Guerrera’s heirs.

23 This case also appears in sub-section 4.3

24 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.2.

25 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.3

26 This case being payed, the Secretariat proposes to postpone it to the 863rd meeting (2-3 December 2003).

27 This case being payed, the Secretariat proposes to postpone it to the 863rd meeting (2-3 December 2003).

28 This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

29 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

30 This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

31 This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

32 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

33 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

34 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

35 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

36 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

37 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

38 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

39 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

40 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

41 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

42 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

43 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

44 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

45 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

46 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

47 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

48 These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

49 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

50 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

51 These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

52 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

53 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

54 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

55 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

56 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for one part of the just satisfaction.

57 This case also appears in sub-section 4.3

58 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.3

59 The time-limit of 12/08/2002 only applies to the following applicants: Gennaro Frattini, Mario Marra, Pasquale Mele and Elia Longobardo. For Mr. Lombardo’s heirs, the time-limit for payment has expired on 26/05/2003.

60 These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

61 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

62 This case also appears in sub-section 4.3

63 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

64 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

65 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

66 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

67 This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

68 These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

69 These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

70 Inclusion of cases in this Section does not exclude the possibility that general measures may be examined at subsequent meetings.

71 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

72 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

73 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

74 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

75 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

76 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

77 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

78 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

79 The Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 05/11/1997

80 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

81 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

82 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

83 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

84 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

85 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

86 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

87 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

88 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

89 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

90 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

91 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

92 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

93 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

94 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

95 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

96 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

97 The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of the case to the 863rd meeting (DH) (2-3 December 2003) in order to examine it together with the Hatzitakis case.

98 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

99 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

100 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

101 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of the default interest

102 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

103 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

104 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

105 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

106 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

107 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

108 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

109 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest

110 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest

111 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

112 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

113 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

114 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest

115 The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of this case to the 863rd meeting (DH) (2-3 December 2003).

116 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

117 The Poland’s declaration recognizing the right of individual petition (former Article 25 of the Convention) took effect on 1/05/1993.

118 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

119 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

120 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

121 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

122 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

123 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

124 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

125 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

126 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

127 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

128 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

129 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

130 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

131 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

132 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

133 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

134 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

135 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

136 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

137 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

138 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

139 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

140 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

141 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

142 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

143 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

144 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

145 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

146 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

147 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

148 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

149 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

150 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

151 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

152 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

153 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

154 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

155 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

156 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

157 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

158 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

159 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

160 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

161 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

162 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

163 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

164 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

165 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

166 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

167 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

168 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

169 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

170 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

171 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

172 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

173 Furthermore, in the cases of Başkaya & Okçuoğlu and E.K., the sentence imposed was not provided by law (violation of Article 7). Some of these cases also concern the independence and impartiality of State Security Courts (violation of Article 6§1) and measures have already been adopted in order to solve this problem, thus preventing new similar violations (see Resolution DH(99)255 adopted in the case of Ciraklar).

174 This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

175 The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of these cases to the 863rd meeting (DH) (2-3 December 2003).

176 The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of this case to the 863rd meeting (DH) (2-3 December 2003).

177 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

178 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

179 The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of these cases to the 863rd meeting (DH) (2-3 December 2003).

180 The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of these cases to the 863rd meeting (DH) (2-3 December 2003).

181 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

182 The cases in bold also appear in Section 3 for supervision of payment of the just satisfaction or the default interest.

183 This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

184 The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of the case to their 863rd meeting (DH) (2-3 December 2003).

185 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

186 This case also appears in section 2

187 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

188 This case also appears in section 2

189 This case also appears in section 2

190 This case also appears in section 2

191 This case also appears in section 2

192 This case also appears in section 2

193 This case also appears in section 2

194 This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

195 This case also appears in section 2

196 Following a decision taken by the Deputies on 26 February 2001 these Rules are also applicable to the control of execution of cases decided by the Committee of Ministers itself under the former Article 32 of the Convention or transmitted to the Committee by the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to former Article 54 of the Convention (as worded before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 on 1 November 1998).

197 Certain cases may be registered in two different sections.

198 Cases decided by the Committee itself under the former Article 32 of the Convention (the last decision on a violation of the Convention pursuant to this procedure was taken at the 741st meeting in February 2001).

199 These cases also appear in sub-Section 5.1

200 These cases also appear in sub-Section 4.2

201 These cases also appear in sub-Section 4.2

202 This case also appears in sub-Section 3.b, for part of the just satisfaction.

203 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

204 The time-limit for payment has not yet expired in respect of Ms Guerrera’s heirs.

205 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-Section 4.2

206 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

207 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.3

208 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-Section 4.2.

209 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-Section 4.3

210 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

211 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

212 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

213 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.1

214 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-Section 5.1

215 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.1

216 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.1

217 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.1

218 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2.

219 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2 (freedom of expression)

220 These cases also appear in sub-Section 4.2

221 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

222 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

223 This case also appears in sub-Section 3.a, for part of the just satisfaction.

224 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.3

225 These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-Section 4.3

226 The time-limit of 12/08/2002 only applies to the following applicants: Gennaro Frattini, Mario Marra, Pasquale Mele and Elia Longobardo. For Mr. Lombardo’s heirs, the time-limit for payment expired on 26/05/2003.

227 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2 (freedom of expression).

228 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2 (freedom of expression)

229 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

230 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

231 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2

232 Inclusion of cases in this Section does not exclude the possibility that general measures may be examined at subsequent meetings.

233 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

234 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

235 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

236 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

237 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

238 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

239 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

240 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

241 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

242 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

243 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

244 The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of this case to the 879th meeting (April 2004).

245 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a for supervision of payment of the default interest.

246 This case also appears in sub-Section 3.b

247 This case also appears in sub-Section 3.b

248 This case also appears in sub-Section 4.2 for supervision of payment of default interest.

249 This case also appears in sub-Section 3.a for supervision of payement of default interest

250 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

251 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

252 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

253 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

254 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

255 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

256 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

257 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

258 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

259 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

260 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

261 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

262 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

263 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

264 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

265 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

266 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

267 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

268 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

269 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

270 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

271 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

272 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

273 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

274 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

275 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

276 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

277 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

278 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

279 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

280 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

281 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

282 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

283 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

284 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

285 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

286 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

287 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

288 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.b since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

289 This case also appears in sub-Section 3.a for supervision of default interest.

290 his case also appears in Sub-Section 3.b since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

291 This case also appears in sub-Section 3.c

292 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

293 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

294 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

295 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

296 This case also appears in sub-Section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

297 The cases in bold also appear in Section 3

298 Subject to the case not be referred to the Grand Chamber.

299 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

300 This case also appears in Section 2.

301 This case also appears in Section 2.

302 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

303 This case also appears in Section 2.

304 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

305 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

306 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

307 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

308 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

309 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

310 This case also appears in Section 2.

311 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid

312 This case also appears in Section 2.

313 This case also appears in Sub-Section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

314 This case also appears in Section 2.

315 This case also appears in Section 2.

316 . The parties declared, by letter dated 4 July and 22 July, that they would not refer this case to the Grand Chamber.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents