CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 juin 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 } .sB2F574BD { width:88.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sAF1A2C81 { width:70.78pt; 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 } .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   280 3.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]     de Jorio v. Italy (application no. 73936/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Filippo de Jorio, is an Italian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Rome.   The applicant, who was a candidate in the 1996 parliamentary elections, lodged a criminal complaint against a political opponent who was a senator, accusing him of defamation. The senator had given an interview to the newspaper Il Messaggero in which he had insinuated that the applicant had been expelled from the Pensioners’ Party and had been implicated during an investigation into the activities of the secret Masonic organisation P2.   The applicant brought civil proceedings in order to obtain redress for the damage he had sustained. In a resolution of 11 March 1998 the Senate held that the impugned statements were opinions expressed by a member of parliament in the performance of his duties and should therefore be covered by parliamentary immunity. On the basis of the resolution, the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant were discontinued and his civil action was dismissed.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant submitted that the immunity granted to the senator in question had infringed his right of access to a court.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Senate’s resolution to the effect that the senator’s comments were covered by parliamentary immunity had made it impossible to pursue any criminal or civil proceedings aimed at establishing his liability or obtaining compensation. Accordingly, there had been interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court. The interference had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting free parliamentary debate and maintaining the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.   The Court noted that since the statements had been made in an interview with a journalist, and hence outside a parliamentary chamber, they had not been connected with the performance of parliamentary duties in their strict sense and appeared more in keeping with a personal quarrel. In such circumstances, the denial of access to a court could not be justified purely on the basis that the quarrel might be political in nature or connected with a political activity.   The Court considered that the interference had not struck the necessary fair balance between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the need to safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals. It also attached some significance to the fact that the Senate’s resolution had left the applicant with no reasonable alternative means of effectively protecting his Convention rights, as the Court of Cassation had refused to raise a conflict of State powers. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him 3,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Yalman and Others v. Turkey (no. 36110/97)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Galip Yalman, Bahattin Sarısoy, Osman Çağlayan and Yusuf Çamca, are Turkish nationals, born respectively in 1962, 1943, 1949 and 1956 and living in Sinop.   In September 1980 they were taken into police custody and subsequently placed in detention on remand on suspicion of being members of an illegal organisation. They were released pending trial on various dates between 1982 and 1984. On 13 September 1988 they were acquitted and, in 1989, applied for compensation for their unjustified detention. Non-pecuniary damage was awarded, but the applicants were unsatisfied with the final amounts. They appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicants complained that the compensation proceedings lasted almost seven years, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants 5   000   EUR for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2   500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   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.