CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 mai 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBDAC6E { width:46.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD3DE65B6 { width:24.12pt; display:inline-block } .s5F148214 { width:126.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA4E7D2F5 { width:156.16pt; display:inline-block } .s1E6753DD { width:128.11pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   261 25.5.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]       Violation of Article 6 § 1 Dostál v. Czech Republic (application no. 52859/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Vladimír Dostál, is a Czech national who was born in 1935 and lives in Ostrava (the Czech Republic).   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of the excessive length of eight sets of civil proceedings to which he was a party (which lasted between five years, two months and 25 days and eight years, two months and 28 days) and the lack of an effective remedy.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 were admissible and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with concerning three sets of proceedings and no violation concerning four. By five votes to two, the Court found no violation concerning the remaining set of proceedings. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and awarded the applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kadlec and Others v. Czech Republic (no. 49478/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Jan Kadlec and Vlasta and Jana Kadlecová, are Czech nationals who were born in 1924, 1925 and 1951 respectively and live in Prague.   Submitting that the Constitutional Court had refused to examine the merits of their case - concerning the recovery of flats which had been confiscated by the State in 1975 - for purely technical reasons (an error in the reference to a judgment), the applicants complained that they had not had either a fair hearing or an effective remedy. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that the Constitutional Court’s decision was excessively formalistic. It observed that, after noting that the appeal contained a clerical error, the Constitutional Court had given the applicants time to rectify the error and that their lawyer had done so within the allotted time. It could not therefore be affirmed that the error could not subsequently be rectified. Lastly, the Czech Government had not cited any overriding reason why the Constitutional Court had been prevented from taking account of the rectification of the error by the applicants within the allotted time.   The court had thus interpreted a procedural requirement in such a way as to prevent an examination of the merits of the applicants’ case, thereby disregarding their right to effective judicial protection. In those circumstances the Court held that the applicants had had to bear a disproportionate burden that had upset the fair balance between the legitimate concern to ensure compliance with the formal conditions for lodging an appeal with the Constitutional Court and the right of access to that court.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to rule on the complaint under Article 13. By five votes to two, the Court held that the finding of a violation in itself provided just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and unanimously awarded them EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Szakály v. Hungary (no. 59056/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Zoltán Szakály, is a Hungarian national, born in 1931 and living in Pécs (Hungary).   He complained about the length of the proceedings concerning his divorce, which lasted more than 13 years and six months (of which the European Court of Human Rights can take into consideration seven years [2] ) and that the decisions given by the domestic courts were wrong. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 5 of Protocol 7 (equality between spouses).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. The applicant was awarded EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sobczuk v. Poland (no. 51799/99)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Cezary Sobczuk, is a Polish national, born in 1970 and living in Biala Podlaska (Poland).   He complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted over eight years and six months, and about the length of his detention, which lasted more than four years. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid 15,000 Polish zlotys (equivalent to approximately EUR 3,180) for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Akçakale v. Turkey (no. 59759/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Aslan Akçakale, is a Turkish national born in 1976. He was sentenced to eight years and four months’ imprisonment by a national security court for belonging to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), which is regarded as a proscribed terrorist organisation under Turkish law.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing and about the length of the proceedings (which lasted about five years and three months).   The Court held unanimously that the case was admissible and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court but not in relation to the length of the proceedings. The Court further held, unanimously, that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered and awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     ***   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 ).   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. [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] From 5 November 1992, when Hungary recognised the right of individual petition.