CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 juillet 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 } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC1D9546B { width:128.14pt; display:inline-block } .s1F555134 { width:84.77pt; display:inline-block } .s6584F43A { width:310.52pt; display:inline-block } .s8A1150C8 { width:151.75pt; display:inline-block } .s197FD4BC { width:85.72pt; display:inline-block } .s9E69E2AA { width:110.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s478A9419 { width:30.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7CE92EAE { width:110.14pt; display:inline-block } .s522F0E0D { width:24.84pt; display:inline-block } .s5418B97B { width:144.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA6722135 { width:16.82pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sB347D098 { width:96.79pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s3FE96A52 { width:116.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sAC1E8E07 { width:25.44pt; 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   364 15.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]       Friendly settlements Dorontić v. Croatia (no. 4938/02) Martić v. Croatia (no. 12815/02) The applicants are: Borka Dorontić, a Croatian national, born in 1956 and living in Zadar, Croatia; and, Anto Martić, a Croatian national, born in 1953 and living in Sesvete, Croatia.   In the Dorontić case, the applicant’s property in Starigrad was set on fire by unknown perpetrators on 1 November 1991 and on 12 April 1994. In the Martić case, the applicant’s house in Sesvete was destroyed by fire as a result of an explosion in a military depot on 7 April 1994. They both brought civil proceedings in 1994 claiming damages, but the proceedings were stayed in 2000 under the 1999 Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act and not resumed until December and November 2003 respectively.   They complained that the enactment of the 1999 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) of the European Convention on Human Rights. M.   Martić also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which 6,000   euros   (EUR) is to be paid to each applicant for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are only available in English.)   Houria Abbas v. France (no. 49532/99)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Houria Abbas, is an Algerian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Villeurbanne (France).   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against her on several counts of fraud and a count of aggravated handling of stolen goods.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 3,700   for all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for all costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Karagiannis and Others v. Greece (no. 51354/99)   Just satisfaction The applicants are 42 Greek nationals living in Athens and the Attica region. The application concerns a dispute relating to an estate of 1,165,000 square metres near Aghia Marina beach in Marathon, Attica, which the State transferred to the Navy Fund on 20 August 1967, a few months after the installation of the dictatorship. The inhabitants of the village of Kapandriti, including the applicants, had been owners of 165,000 square metres of the estate.   In a judgment of 16 January 2003 the European Court of Human Rights held that the applicants’ loss of any possibility of disposing of their land since 1967 on account of its occupation by the Navy Fund and the lack of any indemnification for the loss they had suffered on account of the deprivation of their possessions without compensation since that date had upset the fair balance to be maintained between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest. The Court also found that the applicants’ case had not been heard within a reasonable time (more than 35 years, including a period of more than 17 years after Greece had recognised the right of individual petition). It accordingly held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision.   The Court unanimously decided to award the applicants jointly EUR 200,000   for pecuniary damage, EUR 20,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Nastos v. Greece (no. 6711/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Efthymios Nastos, is a Greek national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Athens.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time), Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained of the length (nine years and six months) of administrative proceedings regarding the revocation of a building permit. He also alleged a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court decided to examine the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 alone. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Patrianakos v. Greece (no. 19449/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Konstantinos Patrianakos, is a Greek national, who was born in 1924 and lives in Petrina Lakonias (Greece). He continued proceedings instituted by his late mother against the Public Electricity Company (DEI) for compensation for the destruction of his house following a fire caused by electricity pylons.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length (22 years, two months and 26 days, of which the Court could take only 14 years and ten months into consideration [2] ) and unfairness of the proceedings in question.   The Court unanimously declared the part of the application concerning the length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the complaints inadmissible, and held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pothoulakis v. Greece (no. 16771/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Ioannis Pothoulakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1959 and lives in Athens. He was the subject of a number of administrative investigations and of criminal proceedings for forgery and using forged documents after he and other doctors were suspected of having forged prescriptions with the aim of obtaining commissions from laboratories.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the excessive length (five years, six months and 18 days and five years, five months and nine days) of the various proceedings instituted against him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Theodoropoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 16696/02)   Violation of Article 13 The nine applicants, Panagiotis Theodoropoulos, Vassilios Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros Nikolopoulos, Georgia Drosou, Charalambos Drakopoulos, Andreas Ioannou, Vassilios Tsouras, Christos Galatis and Nikolaos Filippopoulos, are Greek nationals.   In 1993, they brought proceedings against their former employer in the administrative courts for an order to adjust the amount of their pensions.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length (eight years, two months and 15 days) and unfairness of the proceedings in question. They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had not had an effective remedy under Greek law in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings. They also alleged an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The Court unanimously decided to strike out the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1. It declared the part of the application concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the other complaints inadmissible. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. It considered that the findings of a violation constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them jointly EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Vayopoulou v. Greece (no. 19431/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Vassiliki Vayopoulou, is a Greek national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Athens. Her husband and a third person purchased a flat by auction after the Social Security Fund (Ίδρυμα Κοινωνικών Ασφαλίσεων – IKA) had enforced a charging order over it. The auction was subsequently annulled. The applicant, who had bought the third person’s share, brought proceedings in both the administrative and the civil courts seeking damages from the IKA.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), she complained of the length (six years, eight months and 12 days) of the proceedings in question and of the Greek courts’ refusal to examine her case. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of an infringement of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   The Court unanimously declared the part of the application concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the other complaints inadmissible. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   1,500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Scordino v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 36815/97)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Giovanni, Elena, Maria and Giuliana Scordino, are Italian nationals who were born in 1959, 1949 and 1953 respectively and live in Reggio Calabria.   They own plots of land in Reggio Calabria. In 1970, an order was issued prohibiting building on one of the plots, as it was due to be expropriated under the general development plan. After the expiry of the expropriation permit in 1980, the prohibition remained in force in accordance with Law no. 10 of 1977. Two further prohibition orders were subsequently imposed in succession under the general development plan. In 1995, after the last order had expired, the building restrictions remained in force in accordance with Law no. 10 of 1977.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants alleged that the restrictions imposed on their land and the lack of compensation had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court noted that the interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had lasted for 29 years if the regional authority’s approval of the general development plan in 1975 was taken as the starting point and 34 years if the local authority’s resolution was taken as the starting point. Throughout that period, the applicants had been left in a state of total uncertainty about what would happen to their property and a fresh prohibition order could still be issued at any time with a view to the expropriation of the land.   In view of the circumstances of the case, in particular the uncertainty, the lack of any effective domestic remedy and the fact that the applicants had been prevented, without compensation, from fully enjoying their property rights, the Court found that the applicants had had to bear an individual and excessive burden that had upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the right to respect for property. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants jointly EUR 160,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Aksaç v. Turkey (no. 41956/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Yavuz Aksaç, is a Turkish national, born in 1971 and living in Ankara.   On 23 March 1995 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody charged with membership of the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front). On 10 April 1996 Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty of aiding and abetting the DHKP-C , and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and debarred him from public service for three years.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that he was denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which tried and convicted him. He further complained under Article 6 § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) that the written opinion of the chief public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter-arguments.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, but that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b). The Court also held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR   630 granted by way of legal aid. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Asuman Aydın v. Turkey (no. 40261/98)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Asuman Aydın, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1933 and lives in Ordu (Turkey). She owned land in Ordu which was expropriated by the State in 1990.   She complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of an infringement of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions on account of the delay by the authorities in paying her additional compensation for expropriation that she had been awarded by the domestic courts.   The Court found that the delay in payment of the additional compensation for expropriation was attributable to the authorities and had caused the applicant damage distinct from the expropriation of her property. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded her EUR 130,611 for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 Çolak v. Turkey (no. 1) (no. 52898/99) Çolak v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 53530/99) The applicant, Lale Çolak, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1973. At the time her applications were lodged she was in Ümraniye Prison in Istanbul. She was twice convicted by a state security court for assisting an armed gang, namely the TIKB (Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey) .   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), she complained of the unfairness of the proceedings which led to her convictions.   The Court reiterated that a civilian who had to answer to criminal charges in a state security court that included a military judge in its ranks had legitimate grounds for fearing that the tribunal was not independent and impartial. Accordingly, it unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As to the other complaints of procedural unfairness, the Court reiterated that a court that had been shown not to be independent and impartial could not, in any event, guarantee a fair trial to persons appearing before it. Consequently, it was unnecessary to examine those complaints.   The Court found that its judgments constituted sufficient just satisfaction in themselves for any non-pecuniary damage that had been sustained by the applicant and awarded her EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses in each case. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 2 E.O. v. Turkey (no. 28497/95)   No violation of Articles 3, 5 and 14 The applicant, E.O., is a Turkish national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Istanbul.   Her son H.O. allegedly disappeared on 21 March 1995. Witnesses who were being held at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters at the time reported having seen him. After complaints and applications were lodged by the family, the administrative and judicial authorities made inquiries and, during the course of their investigations, visited the security headquarters and took statements from witnesses.   H.O.’s body was found on 26 March 1995 in Beykoz (Istanbul). An autopsy performed the following day established that he had been strangled. The gendarmerie carried out investigations at the scene. The applicant and other members of the family lodged a complaint with the Fatih Public Prosecutor’s Office. They also lodged a complaint against the Beykoz gendarmes, alleging that the authorities had waited until 17 May 1995 before taking fingerprints to identify the deceased.   The applicant alleged that her son had been the victim of an extrajudicial execution by the police and that she had not been able to submit her complaint to the criminal courts. She relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The Court was unable to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt from the evidence before it that H.O. had been detained at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters at the material time. As regards the applicant’s allegations that her son had been killed by the security forces or with their connivance, the Court noted that they were not based on verifiable concrete evidence or conclusively backed up by witness statements or other proof. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2.   As to the manner in which the investigations had been conducted, the Court noted that although the case had come before three public prosecutors, none of them had really assumed overall responsibility for the investigation. The material in the case file revealed a blatant lack of coordination or cooperation between the investigating authorities. Photographs of the deceased were not made public even though they could have facilitated identification of the body and it was only after the intervention of H.O.’s relatives that fingerprints had been taken for comparison. In those circumstances, the Court found that the authorities had not carried out an adequate and effective investigation into the death, in breach of Article 2.   Since it had not been established that the security forces had been implicated in H.O.’s detention and murder, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles   3 and 5 of the Convention. As there was no evidence to show that he had been killed on account of his political opinions, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Örnek and Eren v. Turkey (no. 41306/98)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Tacettin Örnek and Abdulvahap Eren, are Turkish nationals, born in 1962 and 1966 respectively and living in Mardin.   They complained that they were tortured while in police custody in Mardin in January 1998. On 26 November 1998, the Diyarbakır State Security Court found Mr Örnek guilty of aiding and abetting the PKK (the Kurdish Workers’ Party) – proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law – and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. Mr   Eren was acquitted.   They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive jointly EUR   46,000 for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Haydar Yıldırım and Others v. Turkey (no. 42920/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Haydar Yıldırım, Mehmet Coban and Mustafa Kocaoğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1956, 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in Ankara.   At the material time, they were members of the Freedom and Solidarity Party ( Özgürlük ve Dayanışma Partisi ) and leaders of the party’s local branch in Mamak.   On 1 September 1996, while demonstrating on World Peace Day the applicants were found in possession of a pamphlet published by the party containing an article entitled “Peace Now” ( Barış! Hemen Şimdi! ). They were prosecuted and on 21 October 1997 the Ankara State Security Court sentenced them to two years’ imprisonment for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between social classes, races and regions.   The applicants submitted that their conviction had infringed their right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention. They also alleged, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), that they did not have a fair trial.   The Court found that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not be regarded as sufficient by themselves to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. The applicants had expressed their opinions as politicians and actors on the Turkish political stage. They had not incited people to use violence or to resort to armed resistance or uprising and had not engaged in hate speech. That, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court found that the applicants’ sentences were disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, not “necessary in a democratic society”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   The Court reiterated that a civilian who had to answer to criminal charges in a state security court that included a military judge in its ranks had legitimate grounds for fearing that the tribunal was not independent and impartial. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As to the other complaints of procedural unfairness, the Court reiterated that a court that had been shown not to be independent and impartial could not, in any event, guarantee a fair trial to persons appearing before it. Consequently, it was unnecessary to examine those complaints.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR   15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 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 20 November 1985, when Greece recognised the right of individual petition.