003-2475724-2685263

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   16.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland and Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, none of which are final.[1]   Repetitive cases[2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Naus v. Poland (application no. 7224/04) The applicant, Piotr Naus, is a Polish national who was born in 1975. He is currently in prison in Wołów (Poland).   He was arrested and taken into custody in May 1999 on suspicion of hostage-taking, assault and wounding, extortion and aggravated robbery, among other offences. Mr Naus was ultimately convicted on some of the charges in November 2006 and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. His appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Supreme Court in November 2007. He complained that his pre-trial detention and the proceedings against him were excessively long, relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the reasons given by the Polish authorities to justify keeping the applicant in custody for some four years were not sufficient and thus held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. In addition, considering that the duration – eight years and six months – of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive, the Court held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded Mr Naus 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 10 Cuc Pascu v. Romania (no. 36157/02) The applicant, Florian Cuc Pascu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Oradea (Romania).   A journalist by profession, he was convicted in February 2002 for insults and defamation after publishing an article in which he accused the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of Oradea University, also a Member of Parliament, of fraud and plagiarism, describing him among other things as a “crook” and a “little law-breaking doctor”. He was fined EUR 640 and ordered, jointly with the newspaper in which the article was published, to pay EUR 2,239 in damages. The applicant relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   The Court found that the applicant had not succeeded in proving the veracity of his statements before the Romanian courts, despite the opportunity for him to do so during the domestic proceedings. Given the lack of factual basis and his position as a journalist, the applicant should have demonstrated the greatest rigour and exercised particular caution before publishing the offending article. He had not even verified the content of the article before its publication, even though the information came from a third party. Moreover, as regards the insulting remarks used by the applicant, the Court found that he could not be regarded as having had recourse to “a degree of exaggeration” or “provocation” that was permitted by journalistic freedom. The Court, taking the view that the reasons given in support of the applicant’s conviction had been sufficient and relevant, found that the interference with his freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Lamarche v. Romania (no. 21472/03) The applicant, Rodica Iulia Lamarche, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest.   She complained about the refusal by Romanian criminal courts to grant her the status of civil party in proceedings concerning the unlawful sale of her flat by third parties. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court found that the applicant had given statements both to a prosecutor and to a court, but had not expressly made any application for civil-party status on those occasions. It further observed that the courts had examined the applicant’s status in the proceedings, classifying her as a witness, and had found that only the notary could claim to be an injured party. Lastly, the applicant had been a party to civil proceedings for the annulment of the contract of sale and could also have claimed compensation for her alleged loss, but had not done so. Accordingly, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14 Tehleanu v. Romania (no. 1578/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Tehleanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Iaşi (Romania).   He was a fire-fighter and on that basis had military status. He alleged that income tax had been unlawfully charged on the severance pay he had received on retirement and complained of discrimination in view of the fact that other servicemen in the same situation had received severance pay free of tax. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court found that the interference complained of was manifestly unlawful under domestic law and consequently in breach of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It further observed that, unlike the applicant, other servicemen discharged to the reserve list had received their severance pay free of tax and that there were no grounds to justify such discrimination. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14, and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,300 in costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Maria Peter and Others v. Romania (no. 54369/00) In a judgment delivered on 31 May 2007 the Court had found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because of failure to enforce part of a final judicial decision ordering the restitution of land to the applicants. The Court had further found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in view of the applicants’ inability to enjoy peaceful possession of the land in question.   At the time the Court had held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In the present judgment the Court held unanimously that the Romanian authorities were required to enforce the judgment given in the applicants’ favour and awarded each applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Petrulian Ioanovici v. Romania (no. 30307/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning an action for recovery of possession.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Figiel v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 38206/0) Bercaru v. Romania (no. 8870/02) Păunoiu v. Romania (no. 32700/04)     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.