CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 13 janvier 2005

.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 } .s8150ABE1 { width:79.43pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0103C4 { width:23.23pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA15A98AE { width:66.15pt; display:inline-block } .s3EDFEA27 { width:157.47pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   110 13.01.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Croatia, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Capeau v. Belgium (application no. 42914/98)   Violation Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Wim Capeau, is a Belgian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Ghent (Belgium).   He was arrested on 29 March 1994 in connection with an arson investigation, and was placed in pre-trial custody, where he remained until 21 April 1994. At the end of the proceedings against him, Mr Capeau was found to have no case to answer. He applied for compensation for the damage sustained as a result of being placed in pre-trial detention. His application was dismissed by the Minister of Justice, and then by the appeal board for wrongful pre-trial detention, on the ground that he had not provided evidence of his innocence, as required by a law of 13 March 1973 (“dat verzoeker derhalve het bij de wet van hem vereiste bewijs van onschuld niet bijbrengt”).   The applicant submitted that the statutory requirement for him to establish his innocence on factual or legal grounds violated Articles 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights pointed out that the mere refusal to compensate a person who had been placed in pre-trial detention and subsequently found to have no case to answer was not in itself incompatible with the presumption of innocence. However, the fact that section   28 § 1 b of the 1973 Act required, unconditionally and unreservedly, that such persons provided evidence of their innocence left a doubt with regard to their innocence and   the merits of the decisions reached by the investigation authorities.   Such a requirement, which suggested that the court considered the applicant guilty, seemed unreasonable and showed an infringement of the presumption of innocence. As the appeal board’s reasoning was incompatible with the presumption of innocence, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2.   The Court considered that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 14, since it concerned the same legal situation as that in respect of which the Court had found a violation of Article 6 § 2. Further, as the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the prescribed time-limit, the Court considered that there was no call to make him an award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Camasso v. Croatia (no. 15733/02)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Lorenzo Camasso, is a Croatian national, born in 1964 and living in Bjelovar, Croatia.   The applicant, who was found guilty of manslaughter, complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted six years and 11 months, of which the Court could take into consideration three years, 11 months and two days [2] . He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Gizzatova v. Russia (no. 5124/03)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Fadiya Khamatnurovna Gizzatova, is a Russian national, born in 1940 and living in Birsk (Bashkortostan Republic of the Russian Federation).   The applicant complained of the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments awarding her compensation. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that, at least in part, the execution of the main judgment in question lasted for about five years and that it was not until the applicant’s case before the European Court of Human Rights had been communicated to the Russian Government that the debts accruing from the judgments were finally settled. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant 32,063 roubles (RUR) and 25 kopecks for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,600 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Dağtekin v. Turkey (no. 36215/97)   Violation Article 10 The applicant, Hasan Dağtekin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Diyarbakır. At the material time he was the owner and editor of the “Dilan” publishing house.   In 1994 he published a novel written by Rıza Çolpan, entitled “Xide Naxirvan U Tevkustina Dersim” (Xide Naxirvan and the Genocide of Dersim), which criticised the pressure that Turkey had allegedly exerted on the Kurdish people throughout history. As a result of its publication, Ankara State Security Court, in a judgment of 14 November 1995, instructed the applicant to pay a fine for disseminating separatist propaganda and ordered the confiscation of the disputed book. That verdict was upheld by the Court of Cassation.   The applicant submitted that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression, relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court held that the grounds put forward by the Turkish courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Although certain particularly acerbic passages in the book presented an extremely negative picture of the history of the Turkish State, thus giving the story a hostile connotation, they did not incite the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection; nor was the book an example of hate speech.   The Court considered that the applicant’s sentence was disproportionate to the aims pursued and, consequently, not “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded Mr Dağtekin EUR 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 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. 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. [2] From 6 November 1997 the day after the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Croatia.