CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 novembre 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 } .sA5306D02 { width:112.12pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   558 10.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (All four are available only in French.)     Achour v. France (application no 67335/01)   Violation Article 7 The applicant, Couider Achour, is an Algerian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Lyons (France).   On 14 April 1997 the Lyons Criminal Court found the applicant guilty of an offence under drug-trafficking legislation following the discovery in his garage of two bags containing some 57 kilograms of cannabis, sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment and made an order excluding him from French territory for ten years.   On 25 November 1997 the Lyons Court of Appeal increased the sentence to 12 years on the ground that the applicant had committed the offence while classified in law as a recidivist, having been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking in 1984. He appealed to the Court of Cassation but was unsuccessful.   The applicant complained that the French courts had classified him as a statutory recidivist as defined in the new Criminal Code, in breach of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the applicant’s first offence had been committed at a time when the statutory limitation period for recidivism had been five years, whereas the second offence had come under the new Criminal Code, which prescribed a ten-year limitation period. In accordance with the legal rules applicable at the time, the initial limitation period for recidivism had expired on 12   July 1991, five years after the applicant had finished serving his sentence. The new ten-year limitation period had not become part of French law until almost three years after that date, when the new Criminal Code had come into force on 1 March 1994.   Since the entry into force of the new Criminal Code had entailed the application of Article 132-9 to the offence of which the applicant had been convicted in 1984, the courts had been required to restore the applicant’s status as a recidivist, although under the provisions of French law which had been in force at the time the limitation period had officially ended on 12 July 1991.   The Court considered that by applying the provisions of the new Criminal Code in the present case, the French courts had applied the criminal law “retrospectively”. As a result, the applicant had been sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, whereas the statutory maximum sentence in the absence of recidivism had been ten years. He had therefore been sentenced to a heavier penalty.   The Court therefore took the view that Article 132-9 of the new Criminal Code could not have retrospective effect and that in the second set of proceedings the applicant should have been tried as a first offender and not as a recidivist. It considered that where, as in the present case, a person had been convicted as a recidivist pursuant to new legislation, the principle of legal certainty dictated that the statutory limitation period for recidivism should not already have expired under the previous law.   The Court accordingly held by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention. It 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 5,917 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   Canevi and Others v. Turkey (no. 40395/98) Ünal v. Turkey (no. 48616/99) Volkan Aydın v. Turkey (no. 54501/00)   Şehmus Canevi, Abdülmecit Canevi and Gıyas Turgut are Turkish nationals who were born in 1965, 1965 and 1950 respectively. They were found guilty of organised drug trafficking and were each sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine.   Volkan Aydın is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Ankara. He was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment for providing support and assistance to an armed gang, namely Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left).   Süleyman Ünal is a Turkish national born in 1977. He was in custody in Bergama Prison (Turkey) when his application was lodged. He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for providing support and assistance to an illegal organisation, the TIKB (Union of Communist Revolutionaries of Turkey – Türkiye Ihtilalci Komunistler Birliği ).   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 Ünal the applicant also alleged that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) while being questioned.   The Court declared the Ünal application admissible solely in respect of the fairness of the proceedings.   The Court held unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 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 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. In the cases of Canevi and Others and Volkan Aydın it awarded the applicants EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses.   ***   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.