CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 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 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s65756808 { width:58.78pt; display:inline-block } .sBBC7D9E6 { width:108.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7DE96CBD { width:84.13pt; display:inline-block } .s421F8459 { width:270.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB8567F52 { width:122.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA3C10F { width:119.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9A32A52D { width:153.47pt; display:inline-block } .s62D211E4 { width:19.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA1312BB5 { width:150.81pt; display:inline-block } .s4B4BFF41 { width:166.14pt; display:inline-block } .s24A0D980 { width:88.18pt; 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   310 22.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]       Violation of Article 6 § 1 Bartl v. Czech Republic (application no.50262/99)   Violation of Article 13   The applicant, Werner Bartl, is a Czech national who was born in 1961 and lives in Nový Jičín. He alleged that the length of proceedings in which he had been a party, concerning the division of jointly-owned property and dissolution of the co-ownership, had been excessive, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a hearing within a reasonable time). He further submitted that he had not had an effective remedy whereby he could have complained about the length of the proceedings, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy).   The Court was only able to take into consideration the period that began on the date the Convention entered into force with respect to the Czech Republic, that is to say 18 March 1992. The proceedings ended on 8 March 2001 and had therefore lasted nine years. Since that period did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement of Article 6 § 1, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of that provision.   The Court also noted that it had previously heard cases similar to the present one and had found a violation of Article 13. It saw no reason to reach a different conclusion in the case before it and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13. It awarded Mr   Bartl EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pabla Ky v. Finland (no. 47221/99)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant is a limited partnership company, founded in 1986 and based in Helsinki, which was running a restaurant in Helsinki. The company brought civil proceedings against the owner of the restaurant premises, after having paid a rental increase to cover renovation work which was not completed according to plan.   The applicant company, relying on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), complained that the court of appeal which sat in his civil proceedings was not independent or impartial since one of the judges was a Member of the Finnish Parliament (M.P.).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that there was no indication that M.P. was actually, or subjectively, biased against the applicant when sitting in the Court of Appeal in his case. The only issue was whether, due to his position as a member of the legislature, his participation cast legitimate doubt on the objective impartiality or structural impartiality of the court which decided the applicant’s appeal.   The Court had no objection per se to expert lay members participating in the decision-making in a court. The Court recalled that M.P. had sat on the Court of Appeal as an expert in rental matters since 1974 and had, in the Finnish Government’s view, accrued considerable experience valuable in contributing to adjudicating in that type of case. Neither did the Court find that there was any indication in the applicant’s case that M.P.’s membership of a particular political party had any connection or link with any of the parties in the proceedings or the substance of the case before the Court of Appeal. Nor was there any indication that M.P. played any role in respect of the legislation which was in issue in the case.   Accordingly, M.P. had not exercised any prior legislative, executive or advisory function in respect of the subject-matter or legal issues before the Court of Appeal for decision in the applicant’s appeal. The Court was not persuaded that the mere fact that M.P. was a member of the legislature at the time when he sat on the applicant’s appeal was sufficient to raise doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the Court of Appeal. While the applicant relied on the theory of separation of powers, the principle was not decisive in the abstract.   The applicant’s fear as to a lack of independence and impartiality of the Court of Appeal, due to the participation of an expert member who was also a Member of Parliament, could not be regarded as being objectively justified. Consequently, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Wesołowski v. Poland (no. 29687/96)   Violation of Articles 5 §§ 3, 4 The applicant, Marek Wesołowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Zielona Góra.   Suspected of placing a grenade under the official car of the Director of Customs, he was arrested on 18 March 1994 and remanded in custody. He made a number of bail applications. The Polish courts held that his continued detention was justified, initially because he was probably illegally in possession of grenades, and subsequently because forensic evidence had to be obtained and the applicant faced new charges including robbery, assault with intent and extortion.   On 9 November 1995 the applicant was released on bail by the Jelenia Góra Regional Court. However, that decision was reversed on appeal and on 2   December 1995 he was rearrested and remanded in custody. On 18 June 1997 he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. With remission of sentence, he was released on 16   March 1999.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the length of his detention pending trial and that he had not had access to the court which had ruled on the applications to extend that detention.   The Court noted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had lasted for a total of three years, two months and eight days. Although the reasons given by the Polish courts could initially justify his remand in custody, they inevitably became less relevant with the passage of time and only very compelling reasons could persuade the Court that such a lengthy deprivation of liberty was justified. The Court found that no such reasons had existed in the case before it.   It considered that the domestic courts had not advanced any reason capable of justifying the applicant’s continued detention, as indeed had been noted by the Supreme Court which, when deciding the last of the applications to remand the applicant in custody, had remarked on the judicial authorities’ failure to exercise due diligence. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.   Further, the Court considered that the principle of equality of arms required that the applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to attend the hearings at which the question of his continued detention was raised to enable him to reply to the public prosecutor’s submissions. However, the Polish legislation in force at the material time denied him that right. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Articles 5 §§§ 3, 4, 5 Pavletić v. Slovakia (no. 39359/98)   No violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Nenad Pavletić, is a Slovakian national, born in 1962 and living in Marčana (Croatia).   He was remanded in custody with effect from 26 January 1995 for two years, charged with trafficking in women. He was convicted in June 1997.   The applicant complained, under Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) about the length of his detention, that his application for release was not decided within a reasonable time (no decision had been delivered concerning his request) and that he had no enforceable right to compensation. He also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that the presiding judge of the regional court dealing with his case had earlier acted as the public prosecutor in the case and, under Article 13, that he had no effective remedy.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Articles 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article   13. The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1, as the applicant had neither raised his objection concerning the alleged bias of the judge during the domestic proceedings nor invoked any relevant reason for such an omission. The Court held that the finding of a violation of Articles 5 § 3, Article 5 § 4 and Article 5 § 5 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Tám v. Slovakia (no. 50213/99)   Violation of Articles 5 §§ 1, 4 The applicant, Karol Tám, is a Slovakian national, born in 1943 and living in Bratislava.   In August 1993, the applicant, who had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, was held in a mental hospital against his will. He alleged that his detention was unlawful and that he was unable to obtain a review of the lawfulness of his detention by a court. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that a court had not taken formal decisions to bring proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s examination in a mental hospital or to appoint a guardian for him, or heard the applicant and the doctor treating him to establish whether the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had been justified, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Neither had a court decided within seven days after the applicant had been brought to a medical institution whether such a measure was lawful. Finding that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty was therefore not “lawful”, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 5 §§ 1 and 4 and awarded the applicant EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Acar v. Turkey (no. 39678/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Leşker Acar, is a Turkish national, born in 1966 and living in Silopi (Turkey).   On 28 April 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having been involved in the terrorist activities of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law. On 3 July 1998 he was convicted of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment.   He complained that he was denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the court which tried and convicted him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage alleged. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   985 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Aydın and Yunus v. Turkey (nos. 32572/96 and 33366/96)   Violation of Article 3 The applicants, Abdülrezzak Aydın and Abdullah Yunus, are Turkish nationals. They were born in 1961 and 1971 respectively. When the applications were lodged, Mr Aydın was living in Istanbul and Mr Yunus was in custody in Bayrampaşa Prison (Istanbul).   They were arrested in April 1995 during a police operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) – proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law – and taken into police custody. On 5 May 1995, at the end of their period in police custody, the applicants were examined by a doctor. He found no traces of violence on their bodies. The applicants were then remanded in custody.   On 18 May 1995 the prison doctor examined the applicants and found that both had sustained bruising and swelling to the testicles and were suffering, inter alia , from pain in the legs. His findings were confirmed by doctors from the Fatih Institute of Forensic Medicine who certified the applicants wholly unfit for work for a period of five days as a result of the treatment they had received.   The applicants lodged a complaint against the officers who had been on duty when they were in police custody. However, the officers were found to have no case to answer. Mr Aydın and Mr Yunus were charged with assisting an armed group. The proceedings are still pending in the state security court.   Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants asserted that they had been subjected to torture while in police custody.   The Court noted that the conclusions in the medical reports that had been drawn up before and after the applicants had left police custody were contradictory. The Turkish Government had been unable to provide a plausible explanation for the conflicting reports or for the applicants’ injuries which, in any event, could only have been sustained while they were in custody.   The State had thus failed to discharge its obligation to protect vulnerable persons in the custody of police officers. Accordingly, the Court found unanimously there was unrefuted concrete evidence of the violence complained of, which clearly came within the scope of Article 3, and that there had been a violation of that Article.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention the Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Koç v. Turkey (no. 32580/96)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Ahmet Koç, is a Turkish national, born in 1953 and living in Ankara.   He complained about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him, which lasted over 14 years, nine of which could be taken into consideration by the Court [2] . He also complained that Ankara Martial Law Court, the court which tried him, lacked independence and impartiality and that he was convicted on the basis of statements he had made to the police under duress. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of independence and impartiality of the trial court. The applicant was awarded EUR   12,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Şahmo v. Turkey (no. 37415/97)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Ali Şahmo, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961.   In December 1995 he was arrested and taken into the custody of the anti-terrorist section of the Adana security police during a police operation against an armed organisation of the extreme left, the TKP/ML-TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist – Workers’ and Peasants’ Army for the Liberation of Turkey).   On 8 January 1996, at the end of his period in police custody, he was examined by a doctor who found that he was suffering from “subjective pain” and reduced mobility in his arms and legs. A further medical report drawn up the following day noted that he was suffering from radial paralysis. The applicant lodged a complaint against the police officers who had been on duty while he was in custody. They were acquitted on 23 September 1996 by the Adana Assize Court.   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the treatment inflicted on him while he was in police custody and of the shortcomings of the Turkish judicial system as regards redress for such complaints.   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant is to receive EUR 23,000 for damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   The Turkish Government made the following statement: “The Government of the Republic of Turkey regrets the occurrence of the events complained of by Mr Ali Şahmo that led to application no. 37415/97 being lodged notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. It is accepted that subjecting prisoners to torture and not holding an effective investigation in such cases constitutes, inter alia , a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition of ill-treatment is respected in the future. The Government refer in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the Declaration agreed on in application no. 34382/97 and reiterate their resolve to give effect to those commitments. They note that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of ill-treatment in circumstances similar to those of the instant application…   “The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in human-rights protection. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.” (The judgment is available only in French.)   Broadhurst v. United Kingdom (no. 69187/01)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Alan Broadhurst, is a British national, born in 1946 and living in Sheffield (England).   He was summoned to appear before a magistrate’s court on 4 March 1997 for non-payment of community charge and council tax. After failing to comply with the requirement to pay off his arrears in weekly instalments, he was imprisoned for four days. Following his application for judicial review, the magistrates’ decisions were quashed.   The applicant complained about his detention and that he had no legal assistance for his hearing before the magistrates. He relied on Articles 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security) and Articles 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which GBP   2,700 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage and GBP   2,000 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. [2] From 28 January 1987, the date Turkey recognised the right of individual petition.