CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 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 } .s2CEC6C10 { width:70.11pt; display:inline-block } .sBF44568B { width:168.15pt; display:inline-block } .s9A32A52D { width:153.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC1AB4C87 { width:318.92pt; display:inline-block } .sD32EF55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC3B0078D { width:138.12pt; display:inline-block } .s17CCD76D { width:87.48pt; display:inline-block } .s39B25FFF { width:152.84pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9AD86A96 { width:149.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3610B550 { width:141.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s978EBD12 { width:87.75pt; 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   323 24.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Liechtenstein, Poland and Turkey   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]   Freimann v. Croatia (application no. 5266/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Jorgić v. Croatia (no. 70446/01)   Friendly settlement Kresović v. Croatia (no. 75545/01)   Friendly settlement   The applicants are: Anica Freimann, a Croatian and German national, born in 1941 and living in Berlin, Germany; Jovan Jorgić and Milka Jorgić, Croatian nationals, born in 1937 and 1939 respectively, and living in Krušedol, Serbia and Montenegro; and, Đuro Kresović, a Croatian national, born in 1937 and living in Modrino Selo, Croatia.   In all three cases the applicants’ property was blown up by unknown perpetrators: Ms   Freimann’s house in Slavonski Brod, Croatia, on 7 August 1992; the Jorgić's weekend house in Lončarica, Croatia, on an uncertain date; and, Mr Kresović’s weekend house in Sveti Petar, Croatia, on 9 March 1992. They all brought civil proceedings claiming damages, but the proceedings were stayed in 2000 under the 1996 Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act (the 1999 Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act in the case of Jorgić ) and not resumed until December 2003.   The applicants all complained that the enactment of the relevant Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act ( Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima ) violated their right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The European Court of Human Rights declared the Freimann case admissible. The Court further noted that, for more than seven years (more than five of which occurred after the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights by Croatia) the applicant was prevented from having her civil claim determined by the domestic courts as a consequence of a legislative measure. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention. The Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.   The Jorgić and Kresović cases were struck out following friendly settlements in which the applicants were to receive 8,500 euros (EUR) ( Jorgić ) and EUR   4,500 ( Kresović ) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     No-violation of Article 9 Vergos v. Greece (no. 65501/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Nikolaos Vergos, is a Greek national who was born in 1927 and lives in Petres Amyndaiou Florinis.   He is a member of a religious community known as “True Orthodox Christians” whose beliefs require them to use the Julian calendar to fix the dates of religious festivals (“ paleoimerologites ”). In June 1991 he applied for permission to build a prayer-house for the community on a plot of land which he owned. The Petres District Council refused his request for “designation of the area” which he needed in order to obtain planning permission in accordance with the Decree of 16 August 1923 on Town and Country Planning and Building.   By a judgment of 5 July 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant. It noted that the prayer-house the applicant wished to build was a public building, and that under the 1923 Decree buildings in that category were not permitted on sites not designated for such use in the land-use plan. Construction of the prayer-house would therefore require modification of the land-use plan. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the applicant was the only member of the community in Petres and that there was accordingly no social need justifying modification of the land-use plan so as to permit the building of a prayer-house.   The applicant alleged that the authorities’ refusal to modify the land-use plan of the town where he lived so that he could be granted the planning permission he sought had infringed his freedom of religion in breach of Article 9 of the Convention. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a hearing within a reasonable time), he further submitted that his case had not been heard by the administrative courts within a reasonable time.   The Court noted that the Petres District Council’s refusal to “designate the area” for the construction of the applicant’s prayer-house amounted to interference with the exercise of his right to the “freedom to manifest his religion through worship and observance”. That interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely protection of public order and the rights and freedoms of others.   As to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Court noted that the applicant requested, in the name of the exercise of the freedom of worship, a derogation from the pre-established planning regulations of the town where he lived. In the Court’s view, the criterion applied by the Supreme Administrative Court when weighing the applicant’s freedom to manifest his religion against the public interest in rational planning was not arbitrary. It was obvious that the public interest could not be made to yield precedence to the need to worship of a single adherent of the religious community concerned when there was a prayer-house in a neighbouring town which met the community’s needs in the region.   Consequently, regard being had to the Contracting States’ margin of appreciation in matters of town and country planning, the Court considered that the measure concerned was justified in principle and proportionate to the aim pursued. It accordingly held that there had been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention.   As regards the complaint relating to the excessive length of the proceedings, the Court noted that the proceedings had lasted 14 years, 11 months and 22 days. Considering that such a lengthy period failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Frommelt v. Liechtenstein (no. 49158/99)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Peter Frommelt, is a Liechtenstein national, born in 1946.   On 14 August 1997, he was detained on suspicion of, among other things, embezzlement and fraud. He alleged that there had been procedural shortcomings in the review of his pre-trial detention, relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning the applicant’s complaint that he was not heard by the court of appeal before its decision which prolonged the maximum duration of his detention by half a year to one year. The Court noted that the court of appeal held the hearing in camera and in the absence of the applicant and had both to examine new evidence and to decide whether the danger of the applicant absconding and of a repetition of the offences persisted. In addition, the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment on the the public prosecutor’s and investigating judge’s requests to extend the maximum duration of his detention. The proceedings before the court of appeal were therefore not truly adversarial and did not ensure equality of arms between the parties.   The applicant was awarded EUR   315 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   A.W. v. Poland (no. 34220/96)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, A.W., is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Nowogard. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a hearing within a reasonable time), he complained of the length of criminal proceedings brought against him on a charge of trafficking in stolen vehicles.   The Court noted that the proceedings in issue, which were still pending before the Polish courts, had lasted to date approximately nine years and three months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a lengthy period failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), it awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness of the proceedings) Doğan and Keser v. Turkey (nos. 50193/99 and 50197/99)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness of the proceedings)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of the proceedings) Kaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 54335/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness of the proceedings) Murat Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 48992/99)   In the following three Turkish cases the applicants, who were accused of belonging to illegal organisations, were convicted by a National Security Court. They complained that they had not had a fair trial.   Doğan and Keser The applicants, Sinan Doğan and Aydın Keser, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1976 and 1973 respectively. At the time when their application was lodged they were imprisoned in Elbistan Prison. They were sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for membership of the TDKP (Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey). Kaya and Others The applicants, Mehmet Kaya, Fuat Ay, Ekrem Şahin, Sabri Yıldız and Fevzi Yıldız, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1954, 1974, 1962, 1975 and 1967 respectively. Mr Kaya and Mr Ay were sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for membership of the PKK – proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law – and Mr Şahin, Mr Sabri Yıldız and Mr Fevzi Yıldız were sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for providing aid and assistance to the same organisation. Murat Yılmaz The applicant, Murat Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Izmir. He was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for providing aid and assistance to an illegal armed organisation, the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front).   The Court reiterated that where civilians had to stand trial on criminal charges before a national security court one of whose members was a military judge they had a legitimate reason to fear that the court might lack independence and impartiality. It accordingly held unanimously in each of the above cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   As to the other complaints relating to the unfairness of the proceedings raised by the applicants in the Kaya and Others case, the Court reiterated that a court which had been found not be independent and impartial could not, in any event, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction; it therefore considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaints concerned. As to the applicants’ complaint relating to the length of the criminal proceedings in the same case, the Court considered that, having lasted for five years and six months, the proceedings had failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision.   On the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court held unanimously in each of the above cases that the judgments constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants. It reiterated that where it had held that an applicant had been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress was in principle for an independent and impartial court to retry him in due course. In the Doğan and Keser and Kaya and Others cases, the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (These judgments are available only in French.)   Öner and Çavuşoğlu v. Turkey (no. 42559/98) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 The applicants, Reşat Öner and Arslan Çavuşoğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1921 and 1922 respectively and live in Istanbul. They used to possess land in Istanbul which was expropriated by the State in 1991.   The applicants complained of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the delay by the administrative authorities in paying them the additional compensation for expropriation awarded by the courts. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   The Court noted that the delays in paying the additional compensation for expropriation were imputable to the administrative authorities and had caused the applicants to suffer prejudice distinct from the expropriation of their possessions. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded EUR 72,000 to Mr   Öner and EUR 143,200 to Mr Çavuşoğlu for pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicants jointly EUR 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.