398
27.8.2004

 

Press release issued by the Registrar

 

FORTHCOMING HEARINGS

 

 

The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following hearings in September 2004.

 

 

Wednesday 1^st September

 

Grand Chamber - Hearing on the merits

 

9.00 a.m.    Cumpănă & Mazăre v. Romania (application no. 33348/96)

 

The applicants, Constantin Cumpănă and Radu Mazăre, are Romanian journalists who were born in 1951 and 1968 respectively and live at Constanţa.

 

In April 1994 they published an article in the Telegraf newspaper, of which Mr Mazăre is the editor, questioning the legality of an agreement whereby Constanţa Town Council had contracted out to a company called Vinalex the task of impounding illegally parked vehicles. The article, which appeared under the headline “Former Deputy Mayor Dan Miron and serving Judge Revi Moga commit series of offences in Vinalex scam”, was accompanied by, among other things, a cartoon showing the judge (Mrs Moga) on the former deputy mayor’s arm, carrying a bag containing banknotes.

 

Mrs Moga, who had signed the contract with Vinalex on behalf of the town council, sued the applicants. She submitted that the cartoon contained an innuendo that she and the deputy mayor, both of whom were married, had had intimate relations. On 17 May 1995 the applicants were convicted of proffering insults and criminal libel and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment. An order was also made prohibiting them from working as journalists for one year after they had completed their prison sentences. Their convictions were upheld on appeal.

 

The public prosecutor’s office applied to have the decision of 17 May 1995 set aside. The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the article was libellous and that the publication of the cartoon, which was potentially damaging to Mrs Moga’s honour and reputation, constituted the offence of proffering insults.

 

On 22 November 1996 the Romanian President granted the applicants a pardon releasing them from their custodial sentence. Mr Mazăre continued to work as the editor of the Telegraf, while Mr Cumpănă left the newspaper in 1997 when staff levels were reduced.

 

The applicants complain that their conviction and sentence for the publication of the article was in breach of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

In a Chamber judgment of 12 March 2003, the Court considered that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, namely the protection of the rights of others and of the authority of the judiciary. Accordingly, it held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 10.

 

On 3 December 2003 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber lodged by the applicants on 2 September 2003[1].

 

Thursday 2 September

 

Chamber  - Hearing on admissibility

 

9.30 a.m.    Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (no. 46347/99)

 

The applicant, Myra Xenides-Arestis, was born in 1945 and is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin. She lives in Nicosia.

 

She claims to own half a share in a plot of land in the area of Ayios Memnon, in Famagusta (Northern Cyprus), which was given to her by her mother. There are a shop, a flat and three houses on the land. She maintains that one of the houses was her home, where she lived with her husband and children, and that the rest of the property was either used by members of the family or rented out. She also states that she owns part of a plot of land with an orchard.

 

The applicant maintains that she has been prevented from living in her home or using her property since August 1974, as a result of the continuing division of Cyprus since the conduct of military operations in northern Cyprus by Turkey in July and August 1974.

 

On 30 June 2003 the “Parliament of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” enacted the “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. A commission was set up under this “law” with a mandate to deal with compensation claims.

 

The United Nation’s plan for the reunification of Cyprus (the Foundation Agreement Settlement Plan) was put to the vote in Cyprus on 24 April 2004, with two separate referendums being held for the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities. However, the plan was rejected in the Greek-Cypriot referendum and did not, therefore, enter into force.

 

The applicant complains of a continuing violation of her rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for home) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), in that, since August 1974, she has been deprived of her right to property and her home. She also maintains that Turkish military forces prevent her from having access to, from using and enjoying her home and property because she is Greek Orthodox and of Greek-Cypriot origin, in violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

 

Tuesday 7 September

 

Chamber - Hearing on the merits

 

9.30 a.m.    Steel & Morris v. United Kingdom (no. 68416/01)

 

The applicants, Helen Steel and David Morris, are United Kingdom nationals, who were born in 1965 and 1954 respectively and live in London. During the relevant period Mr Morris was unemployed and Ms Steel was either unemployed or on a low wage (earning approximately GBP 65 per week). Both were associated with London Greenpeace, a small group, unconnected with Greenpeace International, which campaigned principally on environmental and social issues.

 

In the mid-1980s London Greenpeace began an anti-McDonald’s campaign. In 1986 a six-page leaflet entitled ““What’s wrong with McDonald’s?” (“the factsheet”) was produced and distributed as part of that campaign.

 

On 20 September 1990 McDonald’s Corporation (“US McDonald’s”) and McDonald’s Restaurants Limited (“UK McDonald’s”) issued a writ against the applicants claiming damages for libel allegedly caused by the alleged publication by the defendants of the factsheet.

 

The applicants denied publication, denied that the words complained of had the meanings attributed to them by McDonald’s and denied that all or some of the meanings were capable of being defamatory. Further, they contended, in the alternative, that the words were substantially true or else were fair comment on matters of fact.

 

The applicants were refused legal aid and so represented themselves throughout the trial and appeal, with only some help from volunteer lawyers. They submit that they were severely hampered by lack of resources, not just in terms of legal advice and representation, but also when it came to administration, photocopying, note-taking, and the tracing, preparation and payment of the costs and expenses of expert and factual witnesses. Throughout the proceedings McDonald’s were represented by leading and junior counsel, experienced in defamation law, and by one or two solicitors and other assistants.

 

The trial took place before a judge sitting alone between 28 June 1994 and 13 December 1996. It lasted for 313 court days and was the longest trial in English legal history.

 

In his judgment of 19 June 1997 the trial judge found that the applicants had published the factsheet and awarded damages to US McDonald’s and UK McDonald’s. A number of the messages in the leaflet were also found to be untrue, including: that McDonald’s was to blame for starvation in the Third World and had used lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of rainforest, or forced tribal people in the rainforest off their ancestral territories; and, that there was a very real risk of contracting cancer of the breast or bowel or heart disease as a result of eating McDonald’s food, and that McDonald’s knew this but did not make it clear.

However, the judge also ruled that false claims had been made about the positive nutritional benefits of McDonald’s food in advertisements, promotions and booklets, that children were exploited by McDonald’s who used them as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going into McDonald’s and that McDonald’s were “culpably responsible” for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which ware used to produce their food.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the defamatory allegations in the leaflet concerning pay and conditions were “comment” and that the allegation that people eating enough McDonald’s food ran a very real risk of contracting heart disease was justified. The court reduced the damages payable to McDonald’s, making Ms Steel liable for GBP 36,000 and Mr Morris for GBP 40,000. 

The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that the proceedings were unfair, principally because they were denied legal aid, and, under Article 10 (right to freedom of expression), that the proceedings and their outcome constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression.

 

Wednesday 8 September

 

Grand Chamber - Hearing on the merits

 

9.00 a.m.    Pedersen & Baadsgaard v. Denmark (no. 49017/99)

 

At the relevant time Jørgen Pedersen and Sten Kristian Baadsgaard, two Danish nationals from Copenhagen, born in 1939 and 1942 respectively, were journalists for Danmarks Radio, which is one of the two national TV stations in Denmark.

 

They produced two programmes about a murder trial in which a man had been sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for murdering his wife. The programmes were broadcast on 17 September 1990 and 22 April 1991. They criticised the Frederikshaven police’s handling of the investigation. The second programme showed Mr Baadsgaard interviewing a witness – a taxi driver – during which the commentator asked the following questions: “Why did the vital part of the taxi driver’s evidence disappear and who in the police or public prosecutor’s office should carry the responsibility for this?... Was it [the named Chief Superintendent] who decided that the report should not be included in the case? Or did he and the Chief Inspector of the Flying Squad conceal the witness’s statement from the defence, the judges and the jury?” The Chief Superintendent and Chief Inspector of the Flying Squad in charge of the investigation were named and photographs of them shown.

 

On 23 May 1991 the Chief Superintendent reported the applicants and the TV station to the police for defamation. On 29 November 1991 the Special Court of Revision decided to reopen the murder case. In the meantime, following the TV programmes, an inquiry had been started into the police investigation; the conclusion, on 20 December 1991, was that they had not complied with the statutory provision that a witness be given the opportunity to read his or her statement. The defendant in the murder trial was acquitted on 13 April 1992 after a retrial.

 

The journalists were formally charged with defamation on 19 January 1993. On 15 September 1995 the City Court convicted them, but did not pass sentence. Both the journalists and the prosecution appealed. On 6 March 1997 the High Court upheld their conviction and sentenced them to 20 day-fines of 400 Danish kroner (DKK) (approximately 53 euros (EUR)) and ordered them to pay DKK 75,000 (approximately EUR 10,000) compensation to the estate of the Chief Superintendent (who had since died). On 28 October 1998 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and increased the compensation to DKK 100,000 (approximately EUR 13,400).

 

The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of the criminal proceedings against them. They also allege, under Article 10 (freedom of expression), that the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding their conviction disproportionately interfered with their duty as journalists to play to act as a “public watchdog” in a democratic society.

 

In a Chamber judgment of 19 June 2003, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 and, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 10.

 

On 3 December 2003 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.

 

Thursday 9 September

 

Chamber - Hearing on the admissibility and merits

 

9.00 a.m.    Kuznetsov & Others v. Russia (no. 184/02)

The applicants, Konstantin Nikanorovich Kuznetsov and 102 others, are Russian nationals who live in the town of Chelyabinsk (Russia). They are all Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

On 6 February 1999 a lease was signed which allowed the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses to which the applicants belonged to rent the auditorium of a vocational training college and associated facilities in Chelyabinsk, in order to hold religious meetings.

 

On Sunday, 16 April 2000, in accordance with the lease agreement, Jehovah’s Witnesses were using the college facilities to hold a meeting for predominantly hearing-impaired Jehovah’s Witnesses to study the Bible and join in public worship. Many of the participants were elderly and also had impaired vision. The meeting was open to the public.

 

The applicants claim that their meeting was disrupted by the regional Human Rights Commissioner, accompanied by two senior police officers, who allegedly called for the meeting to be stopped. Mr Kuznetsov submits that, given the intimidating behaviour of the Commissioner and the police, he thought it best to comply.

 

The following day the Jehovah’s Witnesses group was given notice of the termination of its lease agreement with the college “because of certain irregularities committed by the college administration at the time of its signing”.

 

The applicants unsuccessfully requested a criminal investigation into the actions of the Commissioner and the police officers. They also filed a civil complaint with the Sovietskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, which was dismissed on the ground that the applicants failed to show the causal link between the Commissioner’s arrival and the premature termination of their meeting.

 

The applicants complain – under Articles 8 (right to respect for private life), 9 (freedom of religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) – that they were prevented from holding a religious meeting following undue interference on the part of the authorities and that they were victims of discrimination on account of their religious beliefs. They also rely on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).

 

Wednesday 22 September

 

Grand Chamber - Hearing on the admissibility and merits

 

9.00 a.m.    von Maltzan & Others, von Zitzewitz & Others and Man Ferrostaal & Alfred Töpfer Stiftung v. Germany v. (no. 71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02)

 

The applications were submitted by Wolf-Ulrich Freiherr von Maltzan, Margarete von Zitzewitz, who are both German nationals, by 66 other German nationals and one Swedish national, the Alfred Töpfer Foundation and the Man Ferrostaal Corporation.

 

The applications concern one of the major issues to arise after the reunification of Germany: the compensation terms for those whose property was expropriated either after 1949 in the GDR or, as in the vast majority of cases, between 1945 and 1949 in the former Soviet Occupied Zone of Germany. The terms of compensation and just satisfaction are set out in the Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act (Entschädigungs und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz - EALG) of 27 September 1994.

 

On 29 June 1995 some of the applicants brought their case before the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing, among other things, that certain provisions of that Act were contrary to basic law, in that the prescribed compensation was generally less than the real market value of the property that had been expropriated. On 22 November 2000 the First Division (erster Senat) of the Federal Constitutional Court delivered a leading judgment dismissing the applicants’ claims. Those among the applicants who were not party to those proceedings nonetheless refer to this leading judgment.

 

The individuals among the applicants argue that the Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act of 1994 and the leading judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 2000 were in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), because the amount of compensation they received was far less than the real value of the property that had been illegally expropriated.

 

The applicants also submit that they were discriminated against, contrary to Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), because, unlike other groups of people, they were unable to claim a right to the return of property which was illegally expropriated and for which they received only a negligible sum in compensation.

 

Lastly, those of the applicants who had brought their case before the Federal Constitutional Court submit that the length of the proceedings in that court (four years and 11 months in one case, and five years and four months in the other) exceeded a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).

 

The Alfred Töpfer Foundation and Man Ferrostaal raise the same complaints, pointing out that, under the Compensation and Just Satisfaction Act of 1994, they neither have a right to the return of their property nor a right to compensation.

 

On 11 March 2004, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to which the cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, none of the parties having objected to relinquishment[2].

 

Wednesday 29 September

 

Grand Chamber - Hearing on the admissibility and merits

 

9.00 a.m.    Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland (no. 45036/98)

 

The case concerns an application brought by Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (“Bosphorus Airways”), an airline charter company registered in Turkey.

 

In May 1993 an aircraft leased by the applicant company from Yugoslav Airlines (“JAT”) was seized by the Irish authorities. It had been in Ireland for maintenance by TEAM Aer Lingus, an aircraft maintenance company wholly owned by the Irish State, and it was seized under an EC Council Regulation which, in turn, had implemented the UN sanctions regime against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

 

The applicant’s challenge to the retention of the aircraft was initially successful in the High Court, which held in June 1994 that the relevant Council Regulation was not applicable to the aircraft. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court referred a question under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) on whether the applicant’s aircraft was covered by the relevant Council Regulation. The answer was in the affirmative and by judgment dated November 1996 the Supreme Court applied the decision of the ECJ and allowed the State’s appeal.

 

By that time the applicant’s lease on the aircraft had already expired. Since the sanctions regime against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) had also been relaxed by that date, the Irish authorities returned the aircraft directly to JAT. The applicant’s aircraft was the only one ever seized under the relevant EC and UN regulations.

 

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that it has had to bear an excessive burden resulting from the manner in which the Irish State applied the sanctions regime and that it has suffered significant financial loss.

 

On 30 January 2004, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.

 

***

 

Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

 

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)
                            Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
                            Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91

 

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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.