Human Rights in Europe

Transcription

1 Human Rights in Europe Legal Bulletin Issue 62 February 2005

2 AIRE Centre London Editors: Nuala Mole Biljana Braithwaite Assistant editor: Catharina Harby Printout (Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian):7600 Printout (Albanian):1200 Printout (Polish):600 Printout (Moldovan):500 Printout (Georgian):500 Printout (Macedonian):500 The production of this publication is supported by The Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Council of Europe and the UK Department for Constitutional Affairs This publication is protected by international copyright law. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the editors.

3 Conditions in pre-trial detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KEHAYOV v. BULGARIA 1 (application no /98) 18 January Principal facts The applicant, Ivan Ivanov Kehayov, is a Bulgarian national, born in 1971 and living in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. On 27 December 1997 the applicant was arrested, brought before an investigator and detained on rape charges. A prosecutor confirmed the detention the same day. Up until 16 June 1998 the applicant was detained in a cell at the Regional Investigation Office in Plovdiv measuring 10.5 m². The cell, which he shared with three other detainees, had no window and there was no outdoor access or out-of-cell activities, except for two short visits a day to the sanitary facilities. To relieve themselves outside the time earmarked for toilet visits, detainees had to use a bucket. In April 1998 psychiatrists who examined the applicant to establish whether he was fit to stand trial reported that, a year or two earlier, he had undergone periods of depression and had been admitted for a day to a psychiatric hospital on suspicion of suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. However, the experts concluded that the applicant s mental condition was sound. On 5 January 1998 the applicant appealed to Plovdiv District Court against the detention order. On 19 and 21 January 1998 his lawyer requested access to the case file, which was refused by the trial judge. The applicant s appeal against his detention was heard on 23 January The judge refused to allow the applicant s lawyer to represent him, considering that the written authority form was invalid. The applicant gave the judge another written authorisation, which he signed in the judge s presence, but the court refused to accept the document as it did not include the case file number. Consequently, the applicant had to present his case without legal representation. The court dismissed his appeals against detention. 1 This judgment is not final. Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that, 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.

4 On 21 May 1998 the applicant s lawyer again unsuccessfully requested access to the case file. On 8 June 1998 the investigator gave the applicant and his lawyer access to all the material in the case. On 16 June 1998 the applicant was transferred to Plovdiv Prison where the conditions were considered to be better. During his trial, two further requests for release were dismissed. On 18 December 1998 Plovdiv District Court found the applicant guilty of rape and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. 2. Decision of the Court The applicant complained: that he was detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, particularly as he suffered from psychiatric problems; that, after his arrest, he was not brought before a judge; that his lawyer was refused access to the case file and on one occasion was not allowed to represent him; and, that his appeals against detention were not examined speedily. He relied on Article 3 and Article 5 3 and 4. Article 3 The Court considered that the fact that the applicant had to spend almost 24 hours a day during nearly six months in an overcrowded cell with no natural light and with no physical exercise or other out-of-cell activities must have been detrimental to his health and must have caused intense suffering. Subjecting a detainee to the humiliation of having to relieve himself in a bucket in the presence of other inmates could have no justification, except in specific situations where allowing visits to the sanitary facilities would pose a concrete and serious safety risk. However, no security risks were invoked by the Government as grounds for the restrictive regime to which the applicant was subjected. Similarly, there was no justification for depriving the applicant of out-of-cell activity or physical exercise for nearly six months. As to the applicant s mental condition, the Court was unable to arrive at safe conclusions. While the psychiatrists who examined him in April 1998 found that he was mentally healthy, their conclusion only concerned the applicant s legal capacity to stand trial. On the other hand, the applicant had not shown that he had been in need of psychiatric help while in detention and that such help had been denied. While not underestimating the financial difficulties faced by the Bulgarian Government, the Court observed that a number of improvements to the detention facilities at the Plodiv Regional Investigation Office, which had been recommended by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and which did not require significant resources, had not been implemented. Given the unjustified and stringent regime to which the applicant was subjected, the material conditions in the cell and the time he spent there, the Court considered that the hardship he endured exceeded the unavoidable level inherent in detention and held that there had been a violation of Article 3.

5 Article 5 3 The Court observed that the applicant was arrested and brought before an investigator who did not have power to make a binding decision to detain him. In any event, neither the investigator nor the prosecutor who confirmed the detention were sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 3, in view of the practical role they played in the prosecution and their potential participation as a party to the criminal proceedings. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 3. Article 5 4 On three separate occasions the applicant s lawyer s requests to consult the case file were refused. The applicant s lawyer was therefore unable to study any of the documents that were essential for determining the lawfulness of his client s detention. On the other hand, the prosecutor, who supervised the investigation, confirmed the detention order of 27 December 1997 and opposed the appeal against it, had the advantage of full knowledge of the file. The resulting situation was incompatible with the equality-of-arms requirement of Article 5 4. The Court also noted that at the hearing on the applicant s appeal against his detention on 23 January 1998 his lawyer was prevented from representing him, although he had handed the judge a written authorisation form signed by the applicant in the courtroom, in the judge s presence. The alleged defect in that document that the case number had not been indicated was of such a minor nature that it could not possibly justify, under the relevant domestic law and the principles underlying Article 5 of the Convention, a decision to deprive the applicant of the benefit of legal representation. The Court found, therefore, that there had been a violation of Article 5 4 in that the applicant s lawyer was refused access to the case file on three occasions and was prevented from representing his client on 23 January Article 41 The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. 3. Comment In this case the Court has once again based a finding of a violation of Article 3 in the context of conditions of detention on the conclusions of reports from the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (the CPT). The Court mentions in the judgment that such reports provide a reliable basis for the assessment of the conditions in which the applicant was imprisoned. The Court makes an interesting observation in the judgment, stating that even though the financial difficulties of improving prison standards in general should not be underestimated, a number of the improvements suggested by the CPT in its reports would not require significant resources. For example, the prisoners should according to the CPT be allowed to leave their cells during the day unless overriding security

6 considerations required otherwise. In addition, the regime for family visits should be revised. One of the other concerns of the CPT was the poor hygiene and the fact that pillows and blankets were dirty. Some countries in the Council of Europe allow detainees to bring their own blankets, soap, toothbrushes and similar items with them to the detention facilities. This involves no costs for the Governments concerned, and has contributed to the raising of standards in pre-trial detention centres and prisons. The Court also found violations of Article 5 3 and 4 in this case in relation to the applicant's attempts to challenge his pre-trial detention. Similar problems have arisen previously in Bulgaria and Court s decision was based on earlier judgments. The events that were found to violate the Convention took place before 2000, and it seems like the practices complained of have now been changed in the light of those earlier judgments.

7 Prolonged detention of a convicted terrorist in solitary confinement in this case did not violate the Convention JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RAMIREZ SANCHEZ v. FRANCE 2 (application no /00) 27 January Principal facts The applicant, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as Carlos the Jackal, is a Venezuelan national who was born in He is currently detained in Fresnes Prison. Prosecuted in connection with investigations into several terrorist attacks carried out in France, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on 25 December 1997 for the murder of three police officers in For eight years and two months, i.e. from his detention in the Santé Prison on 15 August 1994 until his transfer to Saint-Maur Prison on 17 October 2002, the applicant was detained in solitary confinement. The grounds given to justify the decisions to prolong the applicant s detention in solitary confinement were generally his dangerousness, the need to maintain order and safety in the prison and the likelihood that he might seek to escape; on each occasion, the applicant underwent medical examinations to determine his fitness for solitary confinement. This regime meant that the applicant was detained alone in a cell measuring 6.84 m 2, which, in his opinion, was dilapidated and poorly insulated; he had no contact with other prisoners or prison warders and was authorised to leave his cell only for a twohour daily walk. The applicant further alleged that his only recreation was provided by newspapers and the television which he rented, and that he received no visits except for those from his lawyers and a monthly visit by a cleric. Following his transfer to Saint-Maur Prison, the applicant was no longer detained in solitary confinement. However, since being transferred to Fresnes Prison in March 2004, he has again been subjected to this measure. 2. Decision of the Court The applicant submitted that his prolonged detention in solitary confinement from 15 August 1994 to 17 October 2002 had infringed Article 3 of the Convention. He further alleged that the decisions to prolong his confinement were taken unlawfully, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. 2 This judgment is not final, see fn.1.

8 Article 3 The Court pointed out that, even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibited in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It acknowledged that the applicant s detention had posed serious difficulties for the French authorities and understood that they had considered it necessary to take extraordinary security measures to detain a man who, at the time in question, was viewed as the most dangerous terrorist in the world. As to the conditions of the applicant s detention During his detention in solitary confinement at the Santé Prison, the cell occupied by the applicant, without cellmates, was sufficiently large for one prisoner and contained a bed, a table and washing and toilet facilities; it also had a window which provided natural light. The applicant had books, newspapers and a television, and had access to the exercise yard for two hours per day, as well as to a gym for one hour per day. Furthermore, he was visited by a doctor twice a week and by a cleric once a month, and received very frequent visits from his 58 lawyers, including his current representative who had visited him more than 640 times over a period of four years and ten months. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant had not been detained in complete sensory isolation or in total social isolation. As to the length of the solitary confinement The Court noted that a prisoner s exclusion from the prison environment did not in itself constitute a form of inhuman treatment. In the present case, it observed that the applicant had not been subjected to sensory isolation or total social isolation, but to relative social isolation. The Court also took account of the French Government s concerns that the applicant could take advantage of the prison s internal or external communications systems to renew contact with members of his terrorist group or to seek to spread his beliefs among the other prisoners and perhaps to plan an escape. While it shared the Committee for the Prevention of Torture s concerns about the long-term effects of the applicant s social isolation, the Court found that the general and very particular conditions in which he had been detained, and the length of that detention, had not reached the minimum level of severity necessary to constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3, particularly in view of the applicant s personality and the exceptional level of danger that he posed. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3. Article 13 The applicant applied to the administrative court seeking to have one of the decisions placing him in solitary confinement quashed. In a judgment of 25 November 1998, the court dismissed his application, pointing out that the measure was an internal one which was not eligible for referral to the administrative courts. In that connection, the

9 Court noted that the Conseil d Etat had amended its position in that area in July 2003 by accepting that a decision to place a prisoner in solitary confinement could be referred to the administrative courts. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13, on account of the absence in French law of a remedy that would have enabled the applicant to contest the decision to prolong his detention in solitary confinement. Article 41 The Court considered that the finding of a violation was in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. 3. Comment The applicant, notorious under his soubriquet Carlos the Jackal, brought a complaint to Strasbourg which is of great importance in the first decade of the 21 st Century. The Court has in the past looked at both prison conditions (see e.g. Peers v. Greece, 19 April 2001, Bulletin May 2001; Dougoz v. Greece, 6 March 2001, Bulletin April 2001; Kalashnikov v. Russia, 15 July 2002, Bulletin August 2002) and prison regimes (see e.g. Van der Ven v the Netherlands and Lorse v. Netherlands, 4 February 2003, Bulletin March 2003) and found both to be in violation of Article 3, or the Governments have settled the cases (see e.g. Benzan v. Croatia, 8 November 2002, Bulletin December 2002). In the present case, four judges (from France, Macedonia, Croatia and Denmark) found that the regime to which the applicant was subjected did not constitute a violation of Article 3, whilst three (from Greece, Cyprus and Belgium) strongly dissenting, found that it did. The decision in this case not only appears to run counter to the approach of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, but also to the new European Prison Rules and the Council of Europe Recommendation on the Management of Life Sentences which are not referred to in the judgment. The Court seems to be content that the applicant had social contacts because he formed a personal relationship with his lawyer - despite the fact that she was only permitted to visit him in her professional capacity (as were the prison doctor and the prison chaplain). Neither the French authorities nor the Court appear to have given any consideration to the possibility that the applicant could have received visits from - security cleared - individuals (if necessary, previously unknown to him) who were not his professional advisers. However, having been refused the possibility of attending the French language classes held for other foreign prisoners, the Government noted that he had refused the option offered to him of individual tuition in French. The complaint was brought under Article 3, which, as the judgement makes clear, has a high threshold of severity which must be met before a violation is found. The Council of Europe s "Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism" of July 2002 (referred to in the judgment) make clear that respect for the inherent dignity of the human being must always be observed, no matter how heinous the offence

10 suspected or proved, and that any measure taken must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Article 8 of the Convention protects (under the private life rubric) the right to form and maintain personal relationships. If it is invoked the threshold for finding an interference is lower than for Article 3, but the proportionality of the interference must be examined. No complaint under Article 8 was made in this case. In view of the increasing numbers of people being held, both pre-trial and post conviction, in very severe regimes under anti-terrorist legislation, the mixed messages sent by the Court in this 4 to 3 judgement are regrettable. It is open to the applicant (and the Government) to ask for the case to be referred to the Grand Chamber.

11 Compulsory isolation of HIV infected person violated right to liberty JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ENHORN v. SWEDEN 3 (application no /00) 1. Principal facts 25 January 2005 The applicant is a Swedish national, Eie Enhorn, who was born in He is a homosexual. In 1994 it was discovered that he was infected with the HIV virus and that he had transmitted the virus to a 19-year-old man with whom he had first had sexual contact in On 2 February 1995 the county medical officer applied to the County Administrative Court for a court order that the applicant be kept in compulsory isolation in a hospital for up to three months pursuant to section 38 of the 1988 Infectious Diseases Act. In a judgment of 16 February 1995, finding that the applicant had failed to comply with the measures prescribed by the county medical officer, aimed at preventing him from spreading the HIV infection, the County Administrative Court ordered that the applicant should be kept in compulsory isolation for up to three months pursuant to the 1988 Act. Thereafter, orders to prolong his deprivation of liberty were continuously issued every six months until 12 December Since the applicant absconded several times, his actual deprivation of liberty lasted from 16 March 1995 until 25 April 1995, 11 June 1995 until 27 September 1995, 28 May 1996 until 6 November 1996, 16 November 1996 until 26 February 1997, and 26 February 1999 until 12 June 1999 almost one and a half years altogether. On 12 December 2001 an application to further extend the order was turned down by the County Administrative Court, which referred to the fact that the applicant s whereabouts were unknown and that therefore no information was available regarding his behaviour, state of health and so on. It appears that since 2002 the applicant s whereabouts have been known, but that the competent county medical officer has made the assessment that there are no grounds for the applicant s further involuntary placement in isolation. 2. Decision of the Court The applicant complained that the compulsory isolation orders and his involuntary placement in hospital had been in breach of Article 5 1 of the Convention. Article 5 1 Being satisfied that the applicant s detention had a basis in Swedish law, the Court proceeded to examine whether the deprivation of the applicant s liberty amounted to 3 This judgment is not final, see fn.1.

12 the lawful detention of a person in order to prevent the spreading of infectious diseases within the meaning of Article 5 1 (e) of the Convention. The Court found that the essential criteria when assessing the lawfulness of the detention of a person for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases were whether the spreading of the infectious disease was dangerous for public health or safety, and whether detention of the person infected was the last resort in order to prevent the spreading of the disease, inasmuch as less severe measures had been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the public interest. When those criteria were no longer fulfilled, the basis for the deprivation of liberty ceased to exist. In the case under review, it was undisputed that the first criterion was fulfilled, in that the HIV virus was and is dangerous for public health and safety. With respect to the second criterion, the Court noted that the Government had not provided any examples of less severe measures which might have been considered for the applicant in the period from 16 February 1995 until 12 December 2001, but had turned out to be insufficient to safeguard the public interest. Among other things, despite his being at large for most of the period from 16 February 1995 until 12 December 2001, there was no evidence or indication that during that period the applicant transmitted the HIV virus to anybody, or that he had sexual intercourse without first informing his partner about his HIV infection, or that he did not use a condom, or that he had any sexual relationship at all for that matter. In those circumstances, the Court found that the compulsory isolation of the applicant was not a last resort in order to prevent him from spreading the HIV virus after less severe measures had been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the public interest. Moreover, by extending over a period of almost seven years the order for the applicant s compulsory isolation, with the result that he had been placed involuntarily in a hospital for almost one and a half years in total, the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the need to ensure that the HIV virus did not spread and the applicant s right to liberty. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 1 of the Convention. Article 41 The Court awarded the applicant EUR 12,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,083 for costs and expenses. 3. Comment This is the first case in which the Court has considered the exception concerning the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases in Article 5 1 (e), and the criteria established by the Court will be setting a framework for how any future cases concerning the same or similar issues will be dealt with. As there was no criteria for the Court to apply at the outset in the present case, the judgment draws on the principles previously established in relation to persons of unsound mind and alcoholics.

13 When assessing similar cases from now on, the Court will bear in mind whether the spreading of the infectious disease is dangerous for public health or safety, and whether detention of the person infected is the last resort in order to prevent the spreading of the disease, because less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the public interest. When these criteria are no longer fulfilled, the basis for the deprivation of liberty ceases to exist. In the context of this case it is interesting to look at how the European Union has dealt with issues concerning HIV/AIDS. According to Council Directive 64/221, a State can refuse entry or residence to citizens of other EU states (who would otherwise be eligible), on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Where public health is concerned, the only disease or disabilities justifying refusal are groups which are listed in the Annex to the Directive, e.g. tuberculosis and syphilis. HIV/AIDS is not listed in the Annex, and the EU has clearly stated that the free movement of persons with HIV/AIDS must be safeguarded (see COM (1999) 372).

14 Detention of applicants pending deportation violated Article 5 due to lack of due diligence of the authorities JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SINGH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC 4 (application no 60538/00) 1. Principal facts 25 January 2005 The applicants, Balbir Singh and Bakhschisch Singh, are Indian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1956 respectively. Mr Balbir Singh currently lives in Slovakia and Mr Bakhschisch Singh is staying in the Czech Republic. In November 1996 the applicants were arrested in the Czech Republic, where they were lawfully resident, and were prosecuted for assisting others to cross the border illegally. On 9 April 1998 the Prague 7 district court sentenced them to 21 months imprisonment and orders were made excluding them indefinitely from national territory. After serving their sentences, the applicants were placed in detention pending deportation from 11 August 1998, on the ground that it was impossible to deport them immediately since they did not have passports. The applicants applied on two occasions to be released and to be granted refugee status. All their appeals were dismissed. The applicants were released on 11 February 2001 and were subsequently issued with travel documents enabling them to leave Czech territory. 2. Decision of the Court The applicants alleged that their detention pending deportation had been unlawful and disproportionate, particularly on account of its excessive length. They also submitted that the courts did not rule speedily on their applications for release. They relied on Article 5 1 (f) and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5 Article 5 1 (f) The Court noted that the applicants were detained pending deportation for two and a half years. The proceedings were characterised by periods of inactivity and the Court considered that the Czech authorities ought to have shown greater diligence, especially once the Indian Embassy had expressed its unwillingness to issue the applicants with passports in April In that respect, the question arose as to why the Czech police had not supplied the applicants with travel documents within the meaning of the Residence of Aliens Act prior to their release. 4 This judgment is not final, see fn.1.

15 The Court also noted that, under Czech legislation, detention could only be extended beyond two years if there were serious grounds for assuming that the release of the person concerned would endanger or complicate the proceedings. In the present case, there had been no substantial change in the courts submissions throughout the applicants detention. In addition, the Court noted that the applicants had been convicted for an offence that was not particularly serious, and that the length of their detention pending deportation had exceeded that of the prison sentence imposed on them. Consequently, the Court considered that the Czech authorities had not shown due diligence in handling the applicants case and that the length of their detention had not been reasonable. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 1 (f). Article 5 4 As to the applications for release, the Court noted that the proceedings in connection with the first of those applications had lasted almost three months for two levels of jurisdiction, and that an additional month had been required for notice to be served of the ruling, resulting in uncertainty with regard to the option of submitting a new application. The second application for release had lasted almost eight months. Having regard to its case-law in this area, the Court considered that such lengths of proceedings did not satisfy the requirement of speediness contained in Article 5 4, and consequently concluded that there had been a violation of the Convention in this respect. Article 41 The Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 3,000 jointly for costs and expenses. 3. Comment This decision will be of great importance across Europe, but particularly in all those jurisdictions which have not yet developed refined procedures for dealing fairly, but expeditiously, with aliens whose deportation is proposed in circumstances where it cannot be executed. In this case the Court, composed of a majority of Western European judges, noted that the applicants had been convicted of an offence that was not particularly serious (assisting people to cross the Czech frontier illegally), but that the length of their immigration detention (30 months) after their date of release from post conviction detention, had exceeded the length of their criminal sentences (21 months). Although this delay was, in part, due to the applicants not having passports (and to the reluctance of their embassy to issue them) the Court found that the Czech authorities had not acted with due diligence in handling the applicants cases. In previous cases the Court has considered whether or not the applicant had prolonged his immigration detention by taking advantage of all the measures open to him to challenge the removal (e.g. Chahal v. UK, 15 November 1996) thereby exonerating the Government from responsibility. The difference in this case was that, without either a passport or a valid travel document, the applicants could not be removed. The

16 Court was of the view that the Czech authorities failed to act with due diligence to issue the necessary travel documents. The applicants detention therefore ceased to have the necessary nexus with an imminent removal so as to bring it within Article 5 1 (f). The judgment does not, in terms, address the more far reaching issues. If their national authorities were unwilling to issue them with passports, it remained unclear whether the applicants would have been admitted to their own country on their return by producing a Czech travel document. Putting expelled immigrants, who will not be admitted elsewhere, into orbit has long been considered a violation of the Convention (e.g. with respect to East African Asians, Giama). The practical and legal question was not therefore about the delay in issuing Czech travel documents but rather about whether the applicants ceased to be deportable once their own embassy would not provide them with passports.

17 OTHER JUDGMENTS 5 Article 2 Ceyhan Demir and Others v. Turkey and Menteşe and Others v. Turkey (right to life, right to an effective remedy) Violations of Article 2 and Article 1 Article 3 Mayzit v. Russia (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, liberty and security of person, right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 3, no violation of Article 5 and Article 6 Sunal v. Turkey (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, right to an effective remedy) Violation of Article 3 and Article 13 Article 5 E.M.K. v. Bulgaria (right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial) Violations of Article 5 3, 5 4 and of Article 6 1 Townsend v. United Kingdom (right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial) Friendly settlement Florică v. Romania (right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial) Friendly settlement Article 6 Blücher v. the Czech Republic (right to a fair trial) No violation of Article 6 1 Musumeci v. Italy (access to court, right to respect for correspondence) Violations of Article 6 1 and of Article 8 Molin İnşaat v. Turkey (length of civil proceedings) Violation of Article cases against Turkey (right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 6 1 Dubenko v. Ukraine (length of civil proceedings, protection of property) Violation of Article 6 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Capeau v. Belgium (right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 6 2 Camasso v. Croatia (length of criminal proceedings) Violation of Article 6 1 Gizzatova v. Russia (length of civil proceedings, protection of property) Violations of Article 6 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Todorov v. Bulgaria (length of civil proceedings, right to an effective remedy) Violations of Article 6 1 and Article 13 Pikić v. Croatia (access to court) Violation of Article 6 1 Šoller v. Czech Republic (length of civil proceedings) Friendly settlement Carabasse v. France (right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 6 1 Sibaud v. France (right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 6 1 Popov v. Moldova (length of civil proceedings, protection of property) Violation of Article 6 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Poltorachenko v. Ukraine (length of civil proceedings, protection of property) Violation of Article 6 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sidjimov v. Bulgaria (length of criminal proceedings, right to an effective remedy) Violation of Article 6 1 and Article 13 5 Some of these judgments are not final, see fn.1.

18 Article 8 Sciacca v. Italy (right to respect for private life) Violation of Article 8 Article 10 Halis v. Turkey (freedom of expression, right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 10 and of Article 6 1 Zana and Others v. Turkey (freedom of expression, right to a fair trial) Friendly settlement 2 cases against Turkey (freedom of expression) Violation of Article 10 Article 1 Protocol No.1 Netolický and Netolická v. the Czech Republic (protection of property) Friendly settlement Organochimika Lipasmata Makedonias A.E. v. Greece (protection of property) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 3 Protocol No.1 Py v. France (right to free elections) No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1