CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 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 } .s42256FD6 { width:40.09pt; display:inline-block } .s1481E004 { width:143.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7198226F { width:148.14pt; display:inline-block } .s5F148214 { width:126.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF7A1B0A7 { height:10.55pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s33660E3E { width:133.47pt; display:inline-block } .sDAB17562 { width:82.77pt; display:inline-block } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sFC50572F { width:136.14pt; display:inline-block } .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   532 28.10.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Bojinov v. Bulgaria (application no. 47799/99)   Violation Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 The applicant, Ivan Hristov Bojinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   In March 1997 he was placed under investigation for organising gaming activities without a licence. By way of judicial supervision, he was ordered not to leave the town where he lived without the permission of the appropriate authority. When the applicant failed to attend a hearing, the court considered that he had not complied with his obligations and ordered his detention. He was arrested at his home on 29 May 1998. On 4 June 1998, noting that the applicant had had no intention of absconding, the court ordered his release subject to payment of a sum of money, which he paid that day. The applicant was not released until the following day. On 16 October 1998 he was found guilty and fined.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention and of his continued detention after he had paid the security determined by the court. He submitted that he had not had any means of redressing that situation, in breach of Article 5 § 4 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Lastly, relying on Article 5 § 5, he complained of the lack of an enforceable right to compensation in Bulgarian law.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that in the absence of a detailed account of the steps and formalities carried out hour by hour, the Bulgarian Government could not maintain that there had been no delays in releasing the applicant. It noted, in particular, that no action seemed to have been taken by the relevant authorities during the evening and night of 4 to 5 June 1998 and that the applicant’s continued detention during that period had not amounted to a first step in the execution of the order for his release. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court further held that the applicant’s complaint as to the lack of an effective remedy should be examined under Article 5 § 4 only. As that complaint was bound up with his complaint under Article 5 § 1, it considered that there was no need to examine it separately. In addition, the Court concluded that domestic law had not afforded the applicant an enforceable right to compensation within the meaning of Article 5 § 5 and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention on that account.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Neshev v. Bulgaria (no. 40897/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Todor Nenchev Neshev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   He was employed by Bulgarian State Railways but was dismissed in 1995 for having breached disciplinary regulations. He brought an action in the Plovdiv District Court, which dismissed it on the ground that disputes concerning disciplinary sanctions imposed on railway employees were not amenable to judicial review and could only be reviewed by a higher administrative authority.   Sitting in private on 8 April 1996, the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant, without informing him. On 13 June 1996 the applicant lodged a petition for review, which was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on the ground that the two-month period for lodging such a petition had expired.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention that he had not had access to a court to challenge the lawfulness of his dismissal.   The Court noted that in ruling on the applicant’s action the trial and appeal courts had based their decisions on an interpretation of Decree no. 9, by which railway employees had no right of access to a court in the event of their dismissal. Furthermore, the Court recalled that the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision contravened the principle of legal certainty, as the applicant could not have been aware that a decision had been given on his appeal in time to lodge his petition for review.   The applicant’s right of access to a court had therefore been infringed by the application of Decree no. 9 and, after the relevant provision had been repealed by the Constitutional Court in February 1997, by the Supreme Administrative Court’s defective reasoning in his case. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Dragović v. Croatia (no. 5705/02)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Ranko and Ružica Dragović, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1933 and 1936 respectively and live in Zadar (Croatia). They brought an action for damages after Mrs Dragović’s vehicle had been destroyed and their house damaged by members of the Croatian Army. The proceedings were stayed pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999.   The applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered that the fact that, following a legislative amendment, the Croatian courts had not determined the applicants’ civil claims for almost four years had infringed their right of access to a court. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Dragović EUR 4,000 and Mrs Dragović EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Paszkowski v. Poland (no. 42643/98)   Violation Article 5 § 3 Krzysztof Paszkowski is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland).   The applicant was arrested on 24 August 1994 on suspicion of extorting and stealing money. He was prosecuted and placed in pre-trial detention. He applied on several occasions to be released, but all his applications were refused. The authorities initially based their decision to keep him in detention on the suspicions against him, and subsequently on the need to obtain further evidence. The applicant was released on 30 April 1998. In October 2002 he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the length of his pre-trial detention (three years, eight months and six days).   The Court considered that the suspicions against the applicant and the progress of the investigation might initially have justified the applicant’s continued detention. With the passage of time those grounds had become less relevant, yet the courts had still used them as a basis for their decisions. In that connection, the Court noted that throughout the applicant’s detention, the authorities had not considered imposing any alternative measures on him. The Court further observed that keeping him in detention for a prolonged period had not ensured the proper conduct of the proceedings and that he had eventually been sentenced to a term of imprisonment very close to the length of his detention. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 In the following two Turkish cases the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained of delays in the payment of compensation owed to them for the expropriation of their 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 amounts had been determined 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), and in the case of Çenesiz and Others it considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. The Court further 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 the following overall amounts, in euros, for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Çiloğlu and Others v. Turkey (no.50967/99) 99,000 500 Çenesiz and Others v. Turkey (no. 54531/00)      420 500     Epözdemir v. Turkey (no. 43926/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Kaymaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 57758/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Nametullah Epözdemir is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and is currently being held in Muş Prison (Turkey). In November 1996 he was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for belonging to the PKK.   Bayram Kaymaz, Kazım Yüksel and Zeynep Yüksel are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971, 1948 and 1955 respectively. They live in İzmir, apart from Mr Kaymaz, who is currently in Nazilli (Aydın) Prison. In December 1998 Mr Kaymaz was sentenced to the death penalty, which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment, for being a member of an illegal armed organisation (the PKK) that sought to undermine the territorial integrity of the country. Mr and Mrs Yüksel were sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for providing assistance and support to the same organisation.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that they had not had a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and that the proceedings in which they had been convicted had been unfair. In the case of Epözdemir the applicant also alleged a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and in Kaymaz and Others the applicants claimed that they had been victims of a violation of Article 34 (right of individual application). In the case of Epözdemir the Court decided to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 only, and in Kaymaz and Others it declared the complaint under Article 34 inadmissible.   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security courts and considered that there was no need to examine separately the other complaints concerning the unfairness of the proceedings.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and in both cases awarded them EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR 660 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid in the case of Kaymaz and Others . (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Rıza Dinç v. Turkey (no. 42437/98)   No violation Article 10 The applicant, Rıza Dinç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul. He is a lawyer and one of the founders of the publishing and distribution company Komal Yayınevi ( Komal Yayın dağıtım limited şirketi ). In October 1994 he was arrested in the course of a police operation against the PRK/Rızgari (Kurdistan Liberation Party/Liberation). He was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that he had not had a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and that the proceedings in which he had been convicted had been unfair.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the national security courts and considered that there was no need to examine separately the other complaint concerning the unfairness of the proceedings.   With regard to the applicant’s complaint under Article 10, the Court observed that he had not been convicted for disseminating separatist propaganda or for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on account of his opinions expressed in the magazine Sterka Rızgari or on account of a publication by Komal. The state security court had convicted him on the basis of various pieces of evidence, including the fact that he was the proprietor of a magazine and a publishing company that promoted the cause of an illegal armed organisation. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   The Court considered 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. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Y.B. and Others v. Turkey (no. 48173/99 and 48319/99) Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 The applicants, Y.B, E.E., H.Ş., K.S. and Özgür Kılıç, are Turkish nationals born in 1979, 1977, 1979, 1973 and 1977 respectively. At the time when they lodged their applications they were in prison in Bergama, near İzmir. In January 1997 they were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of being members of the illegal organisation MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party). Once their questioning had ended, several days after their arrest, the İzmir security police held a press conference at which journalists took photographs of the applicants and a press release was issued in which they were referred to as members of the MLKP.   On the following day, the daily newspaper Yeni Asır (New Century) published a photograph of the applicants taken at the press conference, with the following caption: “Eleven members of the MLKP organisation who last year threw a Molotov cocktail at a municipal bus in Malatya, causing mental damage to its driver, Ramazan Türk, and hijacked two vehicles have been captured.” On the same day, the applicants were interviewed by the public prosecutor, who ordered their detention pending trial.   On 23 October 1997 İzmir State Security Court found the applicants guilty of belonging to the organisation in question. Y.B. and H.Ş., who had been minors at the material time, were sentenced to eight years and four months’ imprisonment, while E.E., K.S. and M. Kılıç were given a sentence of 12 years and six months. After going on hunger strike for 167 days Mr Kılıç was provisionally released; he applied for asylum in France. In September 2002 Y.B. was released, having developed Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome after going on hunger strike while in detention.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that they had not had a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. In addition, Özgür Kılıç complained that the proceedings in which he had been convicted had been unfair. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) in that they had been presented to the public as guilty at a press conference. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security courts and considered that there was no need to examine separately the complaint concerning the unfairness of the proceedings.   As to the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence, the Court noted that although the press release had not mentioned the applicants’ names, the way in which they had been presented to the press had made them very easily identifiable, and their names and photographs had appeared in the press articles published after the conference.   Although the police authorities could not be held responsible for the actions of the press, the content of the press release issued by the police had referred to the applicants, without any qualification or reservation, as “members of the illegal organisation” MLKP. Similarly, the press release had stated that it had been “established” that those arrested had committed several offences at various locations in the province of İzmir. In the Court’s opinion, those two statements could have been construed as confirmation that, according to the police, the applicants had committed the offences of which they were accused.   Taken as a whole, the attitude of the police authorities, in so far as it entailed a prior assessment of the charges which the applicants might face and provided the press with an easy physical means of identifying them, was incompatible with the presumption of innocence. The press conference had, firstly, encouraged the public to believe that the applicants were guilty and, secondly, had prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2.   The Court awarded the applicants EUR 7,500 jointly for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 1,260 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.