CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .s6B8971D6 { width:65.43pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFDD07C1D { width:114.13pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   486 7.10.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Russia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Poleshchuk v. Russia (application no. 60776/00)   Violation of Article 34 The applicant, Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Poleshchuk, is a Russian national, born in 1963.   On 26 October 1998 he was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment for membership of an organised armed gang. He is currently serving his sentence in a correctional colony (prison).   On 25   May and 14   December 1999 Mr Poleshchuk sent letters to the European Court of Human Rights, complaining of violations of Article   6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 8   June and 30   December 1999 the prison administration refused to send the letters. The applicant was told that they would not be dispatched unless and until he applied for a supervisory review of his conviction, or filed an application with the Russian Constitutional Court. He complied, but his applications were unsuccessful.   On 1   February 2000 Mr Poleshchuk lodged his application with the Court, explaining that he had exceeded the six months time-limit for introducing applications because he had been prevented by the prison authorities from sending his earlier letters.   After receiving questions from the Court concerning the case, the Russian authorities issued circulars which prohibited the hindering of applications to the Court.   On 13   February 2003 the prison director classified the applicant as a persistent contravener of prison discipline, and, on 26   February 2003, he was transferred to a stricter security regime.   The applicant complained that the prison authorities had prevented him from lodging his application and that, after it had been lodged, he was transferred to a high-security unit, in violation of Article 34 (right to individual petition) of the Convention. He also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Concerning the refusal to post Mr Poleshchuk’s letters, the European Court of Human Rights took note of the steps taken by the Russian Government to change the procedures for handling inmates’ official correspondence. It also noted that, from 2000 to 2004, the applicant’s correspondence with the Court had not given cause for concern.   However, while the Court accepted the Russian Government’s acknowledgement that the applicant’s rights under Article 34 had been violated, it was not convinced that he had received adequate and sufficient redress. The circulars were general directives, intended to prevent similar violations in the future; they did not concern the applicant personally, nor did they refer to a specific violation which they sought to put right.   The undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precluded any interference with the individual’s right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively. Observing that the lodging of the applicant’s case had been delayed by more than eight months, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 34.   In relation to the alleged pressure on Mr Poleshchuk after he had lodged his application, the Court considered that none of the disciplinary penalties imposed on him or the resulting increase in his security classification revealed any arbitrariness which could amount to a form of pressure contrary to Article   34. Finding the claim that there was a connection between his application to the Court and the imposition of the penalties at issue to be unsubstantiated, the Court rejected this part of the application as being manifestly ill-founded.   Concerning the applicant’s complaint that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, the Court found that there was nothing to indicate that the national courts’ evaluation of the facts and evidence presented in the case was contrary to Article 6. The applicant was fully able to defend himself with the assistance of a legal representative and challenge the evidence; there had been a public hearing and the courts’ decisions were adequately reasoned. Having found no reason to believe that the proceedings did not comply with the fairness requirement of Article   6 § 1, the Court held that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded.   In conclusion, the Court held unanimously that the complaint concerning the stopping of the applicant’s letters to the Court by the prison administration was admissible and that there had been a violation of Article 34. The Court further held unanimously that the remainder of the application was inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Vatan v. Russia (no. 47978/99)   Preliminary objection allowed The applicant association, the People’s Democratic Party Vatan, is a political party which was registered by the Russian Ministry of Justice in 1994.   Vatan was founded “to support the renascence of the Tartar nation, to enhance the latter’s   political activity and to protect Tartars’ political, socio-economic and cultural rights”. The name “Tartar” applies to people of Turkic origin who speak a language which belongs to the Ural-Altaic language family. Four-fifths of the Tartars (about 5.5 million people) live in Russia. They are Muslims.   On 3   June 1998 the prosecutor of the Ulyanovsk Region applied to suspend activities of the Simbirsk (Ulyanovsk) Regional Organisation of the People’s Democratic Party Vatan   –   which Vatan claims was a branch of its party – on the ground that it had advocated violence, contrary to federal legislation and the constitution. The regional organisation’s activities were consequently suspended for six months. It was, among other things, prohibited from holding meetings or demonstrations or taking part in elections.   It appealed unsuccessfully.   On 12   January 2000 Ulyanovsk Regional Court allowed a claim for the dissolution of the regional organisation, as its charter failed to comply with new legislation.   The applicant party claimed that the ban on the activities of one of its local branches was in violation of Articles 9 (freedom of religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention   The Court noted that Vatan and the regional organisation were two different legal entities. The regional organisation’s charter left open the question of whether it was structurally dependent on Vatan in terms of decision-making. In addition, it was not prevented from pursuing political goals other than those approved by Vatan and there was no suggestion that the actions and statements which gave rise to the regional organisation’s suspension were prompted or authorised by Vatan. Neither did Vatan’s president take part in the domestic court proceedings in the capacity of head of the entire party. The Court could not therefore conclude that Vatan and the regional organisation were one political party which could constitute a single non-governmental organisation within the meaning of Article   34.   Also, the body directly affected by the domestic measure was the regional organisation. The focus of Vatan’s concern appeared to be the fact that it could not rely on the regional organisation to convey its political ideas in the Ulyanovsk region for six months. The injunction in question did not impose any limitations on Vatan itself, hence there was nothing to stop Vatan from pursuing its activities in its own name, for example through individual party members. The Court also observed that it was open to the regional organisation itself to lodge an application with the European Court.   There were no exceptional circumstances which could entitle Vatan itself to claim to be a victim of the disputed suspension. Even if Vatan could claim to be a victim of the suspension, as it had never pursued any domestic proceedings in its own name in respect of the alleged violations, its application would in any event be inadmissible on account of a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Finally, there was no suggestion that Vatan represented the regional organisation in the proceedings before the Court.   Consequently, the Russian Government’s preliminary objection that Vatan could not claim to be the victim of a violation within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention was well-founded and the Court could not consider the merits of the case.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that the case was inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Mehmet Bülent Yılmaz and Şahin Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 42552/98) Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Mehmet Bülent Yılmaz and Şahin Yılmaz, are Turkish nationals, born in 1975 and 1970 respectively. In 1997 a national security court sentenced Mehmet Bülent Yılmaz to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for membership of an armed group and Şahin Yılmaz to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for having aided and abetted an armed group.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained of the unfairness of the proceedings which resulted in their conviction.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the Izmir State Security Court and that there was no need to examine the remaining complaints submitted under Article 6. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them EUR   3,000 less EUR   685 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 In the following 17 Turkish cases, the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained of delays in the payment of compensation owed to them for expropriated property. They further alleged that the sums they had received did not take into account the true rate of inflation between the time when the amount due to them was fixed and the date of payment.   In each case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property). It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them in respect of pecuniary damage and costs and expenses the overall sums set out below, expressed in euros. (The judgments are available only in French).     Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses   Çebi v. Turkey (no. 50728/99) 1,932 300 Çiftçi v. Turkey (no. 50732/99) 7,888 300 Gürkan and Aktan v. Turkey (no.50741/99) 66,717 500 Kapucu v. Turkey (no. 49718/99) 13,244 300 Kartal Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Koll.Şti. v. Turkey (no. 1) (no. 49698/99) 12,590 300 Kartal Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Koll.Şti. v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 50011/99) 169,000 300 Koçyiğit and Uzuner v. Turkey (no. 49923/99) 224,983 500 Önk and Others v. Turkey (no. 49762/99) 59,868 500 Penbe Demir and Others v. Turkey (no. 51482/99) 22,750 300 Seçenler Kauçuk ve Plastik San. ve Tic. A.Ş. v. Turkey (no.   50042/99) 26,000 300 Telli and Others v. Turkey (no. 51488/99) 248,300 500 Turan v. Turkey (no. 51485/99) 13,000 300 Uğur and Others v. Turkey (no. 49690/99) 141,972 500 Velioğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 51481/99) 468,000 500 Verep v. Turkey (no. 49751/99) 35,750 300 Yazar v. Turkey (no. 51483/99) 195,000 300 Yurtkuran and Others v. Turkey (no. 50730/99) 269,579 500       ***   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.