CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2F7957EE { width:7.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7BEE1C5B { width:118.14pt; display:inline-block } .s3178794F { width:178.14pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s882796D2 { width:156.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s41DFD458 { width:75.47pt; display:inline-block } .s2D9F2AF8 { width:120.79pt; display:inline-block } .s6BF3CFDF { width:158.8pt; display:inline-block } .sD32EF55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEA5A698B { width:66.76pt; display:inline-block } .s84202A69 { width:152.15pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s2D05DCA0 { width:127.47pt; 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   379 27.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Romania, Turkey and the Ukraine.   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]     Pfleger v. the Czech Republic (application no. 58116/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Přemysl Peter Pfleger, is a Czech national, born in 1955 and living in Ostrava (Czech Republic). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of the length (four years and over nine months) of the criminal proceedings for extortion brought against his ex-partner which he had joined as a civil party seeking damages.   The European Court of Human Rights held by six votes to one that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Golea v. Romania (no. 29973/96)   Just satisfaction/Strike out Segal v. Romania (no. 32927/96)   Just satisfaction The applicants are two Romanian nationals. Letitia Golea was born in 1912 and was living in Timisoara at the material time. Sandra Segal was born in 1936 and lives in Bucharest. Following Mrs Golea’s death in 2000 the Court gave her heirs leave to continue the proceedings brought before it.   In both these cases the applicants, in their capacity as heirs, had applied to the domestic courts for restitution of property nationalised by the State. Their title to the property had been recognised by court decisions that had become final in the absence of an appeal. However, on an application by the Procurator-General of Romania to have the judgments quashed, the Supreme Court of Justice had quashed them on the ground that the application of the decrees on nationalisation could not be reviewed by the courts.   In two judgments of 17 December 2002 the Court had held that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the applicants had not had a fair hearing and had been denied access to a court. It had also held that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   In the judgment delivered today in the case of Golea the Court noted that the judgment in question of the Supreme Court of Justice had been quashed on 16 February 2004 by a judgment of the High Court of Justice and of Cassation thus removing the legal uncertainty regarding the applicants’ property that had led the Court to find that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the circumstances, and in the light of the information provided by the parties, the Court noted that the applicants no longer intended to pursue the application and considered that the dispute had been resolved. Accordingly, it decided to strike the application out of its list.   In the judgment delivered today in the case of Segal the Court found that on 12 November 2002 the mayor of Bucharest had ordered the entire property to be returned to the applicant and that she considered that her initial application had ceased to have any purpose. Regarding her claims under the head of non-pecuniary damage and lack of enjoyment of the property, the Court decided unanimously to award her EUR   3,000 in respect of all heads of damage taken together and EUR   600 for costs and expenses. (These judgments are only available in French.)     Violation of Article 2 Ağdaş v. Turkey (no. 34592/97)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Kemal Ağdaş, is a Turkish national, born in 1960 and living in Istanbul.   The case concerned the death of the applicant’s brother İrfan Ağdaş on 13 May 1996. The circumstances surrounding his death are disputed by the parties.   According to the applicant, three police officers who were patrolling the Alibeyköy neighbourhood in an unmarked car, spotted İrfan carrying a left-wing newspaper – Zafer Yolunda Kurtuluş ( Salvation in the Path of Glory ) – and followed him. When İrfan started to run, two of the police officers got out of the car and opened fire, shooting İrfan. He fell to the ground, where the police officers kicked him. A woman ran to help İrfan, but was pushed aside by the police officers who put İrfan in the car. One of the police officers sat on him as they drove away. After an hour or so they left İrfan’s body near Eyüp SSK Hospital.   The Turkish Government claimed that police officers approached İrfan Ağdaş to carry out an identity control and a body search. İrfan attempted to run away and opened fire at the police officers. The police officers called to him to surrender and fired warning shots. During the exchange of fire, İrfan was wounded. He died after his transfer to hospital by the police officers.   A criminal investigation was opened into İrfan Ağdaş’ death on 14 May 1996 and, on 3 April 1997, the three police officers involved were charged with “intentional homicide”. On 2 April 2001 Eyüp Assize Court concluded that İrfan Ağdaş had died in an armed clash and acquitted the police officers on the ground that they had acted in self defence. The decision was upheld on appeal.   The applicant claimed that his brother was unjustifiably killed by police officers and that there had been no adequate investigation into the circumstances of his death, relying on Article 2 (right to life). He also complained that he had no effective access to a court, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). He contended that the facts of the case demonstrated that there was no commitment to carry out an effective investigation into his brother’s murder and that the domestic court was determined to acquit the police officers, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights had serious doubts as to how the shooting took place. It considered that this was largely due to the manner in which the investigation at the scene of the incident, the post-mortem examination and the investigation by the criminal court had been conducted. Finding an insufficient factual and evidentiary basis on which to conclude that the applicant’s brother was deprived of his life by the police officers as a result of the use of force which was more than absolutely necessary, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning İrfan Ağdaş’ death.   However, given the lack of a prompt and adequate investigation into the circumstances surrounding his killing, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning the investigation into İrfan Ağdaş’ death.   The Court further held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1, which it considered in relation to his more general complaint under Article 13.   The Court reiterated that the Turkish authorities had had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s brother. However, no effective criminal investigation had been conducted. The applicant had therefore been denied an effective remedy in respect of the death of his brother and thereby access to any other available remedies, including a claim for compensation. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   13.   The Court awarded the applicant 15,000   EUR for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Ağirağ and Others v. Turkey (no. 35982/97)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The 13 applicants, Abdurrahim Ağırağ, İdris Koluman, Fevzi Üzüm, Abdu Ferit Baytar, Ziya Yüce, Mehmet Hanifi Erolan, Mehmet Aydın, İdi Çelik, Helya Adıbelli, Şeyhmus Poyraz, Abdulilah Poyraz, Zeynep Yüksel and Yavuz Çetinkaya, are Turkish nationals, born between 1945 and 1977, who at the material time were living in Diyarbakır or İzmir (Turkey).   In July 1996 they were arrested and taken into police custody on account of their suspected links with the PKK ( Workers’ Party of Kurdistan – proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law). Criminal proceedings were brought against them following which they were all given prison sentences, except Mr Çelik and Mr Ağırağ who were acquitted.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the excessive length of their police custody.   The applicants were kept in police custody for between six and eleven days. Even supposing that there had been a link between their activities and a terrorist threat, the Court could not accept that it had been necessary to detain them for six to eleven days without judicial intervention.   Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It awarded EUR   4,000 to Y.   Çetinkaya for non-pecuniary damage, EUR 2,500 to Ş. Poyraz, and EUR 2,000 respectively to Z. Yüksel, I. Çelik, H.   Adıbelli, A. Ağırağ, I. Koluman, F. Üzüm, A.F. Baytar, Z. Yüce, M.H. Erolan, and 1,500 EUR each to M. Aydın and A.   Poyraz. The Court also awarded the applicants EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses, less the EUR   630 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Çelik and Çelik v. Turkey (no. 41993/98)   Friendly settlement The applicants, İsmail and Hanım Çelik, are Turkish nationals, born in 1944 and living in Malatya (Turkey).   On 5 November 1996 security forces carried out a search for members of the PKK – proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law – in the applicant’s village.   At around 11 p.m. the security forces surrounded the applicants’ house and asked them to come out. The applicants and their sons Bülent (born in 1974) and Turabi (born in 1977) came out and showed the security forces the direction in which PKK members who had been in the house had fled. A clash broke out and the security forces fired a rocket which killed Bülent.   Following Bülent’s death, the first applicant asked the Doğanşehir public prosecutor to start criminal proceedings against the responsible members of the security forces. On 31 July 1997 the Doğanşehir District Administrative Council issued a decision stating that no prosecution should be brought, as the applicants’ son had died in the course of a confrontation between PKK members and the security forces.   The applicants complained of the unlawful killing of their son by the security forces, relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 60,000   EUR is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses.   The Turkish Government also made the following statement: “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the failure of the authorities to take the necessary measures to safeguard the lives of individuals, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – is respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of deaths in circumstances similar to those of the instant application as well as more effective investigations...   “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 this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.” (The judgment is available only in English.)   Irey v. Turkey (no. 58057/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Emrah İrey, is a Turkish national, born in 1979. He was sentenced to eight years and four months’ imprisonment by a national security court for being a member of an illegal organisation, namely the THKP-C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front) and to three years and eight months’ imprisonment for throwing a Molotov cocktail inside a bank.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial.   The Court reiterated that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a national security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. With regard to the other complaint based on the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to persons subject to its jurisdiction. It accordingly held that there was no need to examine that complaint.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously that the present judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant. It reiterated that in cases in which it had found that applicants had been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress would in principle be for them to be retried by an independent and impartial court at an early date. The Court awarded Mr   İrey EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Karakaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 35077/97)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The four applicants, Mehmet Salih Karakaş, Bilal Bozkurt, Izzettin Ceylan and Metin Yavuz, are Turkish nationals, born respectively in 1964, 1977, 1973 and 1974. When lodging their application, they were detained at Nazilli prison (Aydın).   In July 1996 the applicants were arrested, taken into police custody and prosecuted for being members of the PKK. They were sentenced to prison sentences ranging from 21 years to three years and nine months.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the excessive length of their police custody.   The applicants were kept in police custody for six days. Even supposing that there had been a link between their activities and a terrorist threat, the Court could not accept that it had been necessary to detain them for six days without judicial intervention. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and awarded the applicants EUR   6,000 jointly for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses less the EUR 630 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kürkçü v. Turkey (no. 43996/98)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Ertuğrul Kürkçü, is a Turkish national, born in 1948 and living in Istanbul.   He translated into Turkish a report by the nongovernmental organisation Human Rights Watch – Arms Project entitled “ Weapons Transfers and Violations of the Laws of War in Turkey ”. The book in question consisted of a collection of eye-witness accounts by former soldiers who had taken part in missions in south-east Turkey and an analysis of certain instances of human-rights violations that had occurred in the area.   Following publication of the report the applicant, as translator, and the owner of Belge, the publishing company that had published the report, were charged with insulting and vilifying state military forces. Both were sentenced by the Istanbul Assize Court to ten months’ imprisonment. The court converted the publisher’s sentence into a fine and decided to stay execution of the applicant’s sentence. It also ordered all copies of the book in question to be seized.   Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that his conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression.   The Court found that the grounds on which the domestic courts had based their decision could not be considered as sufficient in themselves to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Although certain particularly acerbic passages of the book painted an extremely negative picture of the Turkish state and gave the narrative a hostile tone, they did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising; nor was it hate speech, which, in the Court’s view, was a factor that was essential to take into consideration. It considered that the applicant’s conviction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly not “necessary in a democratic society”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Viktor Petrovich Romashov, is a Ukrainian national, born in 1954 and currently living in Lysychansk (Ukraine). He is a pensioner.   In May 1998 the applicant filed an application with the labour disputes commission of the Lysychansk mine-building department Lysychans’ke Derzhavne Shakhtobudivne Upravlinnia (the “DSU”) to recover unpaid salary from a State-run coal mine. On 16 June 1998 the labour disputes commission of the DSU ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 8,783.39 [2] in compensation.   The applicant was initially informed that the decision of 16 June 1998 could not be executed because the Coal Mining Ministry had insufficient funds.   On 23 January 2002, he was awarded UAH 2,282.21 in compensation for the loss of value of the sum awarded to him due to inflation.   On 28 November 2003 the DSU paid the applicant the amount awarded on 16 June 1998 and the enforcement proceedings were terminated on 1 December 2003. However, the judgment of 23 January 2002 has not been enforced.   The applicant complained about the lengthy non-execution of the decision of 16 June 1998 and that he was not compensated for the depreciation of the value of the sum awarded. He relied on Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy), 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The European Court of Human Rights declared the complaints under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court noted that the decision of 16 June 1998 remained unenforced wholly or at least in part for five years, five months and 15 days. It also noted that this decision was enforced only after the Court communicated the applicant’s case to the Ukrainian Government. It further noted that the judgment of 23 January 2002 had not been enforced. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Finding that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy for the delay in the proceedings, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13. The applicant was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (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]     EUR 1,369.75.