CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 mars 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 } .s77C8C75C { width:4.77pt; display:inline-block } .s1E6753DD { width:128.11pt; display:inline-block } .sECC95C10 { width:328.66pt; display:inline-block } .s535A6D05 { width:208.16pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s421A095E { font-family:Arial; color:#3366ff } .s16CCF698 { width:66.85pt; 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   130 15.3.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Russia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Soudek v. the Czech Republic (application no 56526/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Ivan Soudek, is a Czech national. He was born in 1956 and lives in Prague.   The applicant has occupied a flat belonging to a housing co-operative since 1988. On an application by the housing co-operative, the lower courts ruled that the applicant did not have legal title to occupy the premises and that he was therefore to move out of the flat in question.   On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court declared inadmissible an appeal on points of law brought by the applicant, on the ground that it did not concern a legally significant decision. Furthermore, on 30 September 1999 the Constitutional Court declared his complaint inadmissible as being out of time; referring to its case-law, it found that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal on points of law meant that the time limit for lodging a constitutional complaint had begun to run from the date on which the appeal court had given its decision, and not from the date on which the Supreme Court’s judgment had been delivered.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant maintained that the dismissal of his constitutional complaint as being out of time infringed his right of access to a court.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, by bringing an appeal on points of law, the applicant had made use of a possibility offered him under the legislation; in the Court’s view, this should not have adversely affected him. Furthermore, it appeared from the Constitutional Court Act that the applicant was obliged to lodge an appeal on points of law in order to exhaust the remedies available under the law. In those circumstances, the Court was of the view that the time-limit for lodging the constitutional complaint ought to have run from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision, or at least been suspended once the appeal on points of law had been lodged.     In this connection, the Court noted with satisfaction that, following judgments it had given in similar cases in which findings of violations were made, the Czech Constitutional Court had announced a change in its practice with regard to the admissibility conditions for constitutional complaints. However, this had made no difference to the applicant’s situation.   Taking the view that the Constitutional Court’s particularly strict interpretation of the procedural rule in question had deprived the applicant of the right of access to a court, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6   § 1. It held that the finding of a violation in itself constituted just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Soudek and awarded him 500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Yakovlev v. Russia (no. 72701/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Yakovlev, is a Russian national, born in 1954 and living in the village of Sanovka in the Ryazan Region.   In 1987, he took part in the clean-up works at the Chernobyl nuclear accident site. In 1993, he was granted disability status and declared unfit for work. In 1994, his status was changed and he was declared fit for light work. The applicant brought proceedings to reverse the reclassification of his disability. His action was dismissed and his appeal was unsuccessful.   He complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, that he was not given notice of the appeal hearing.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the applicant only received the summons for the appeal hearing four days after it had taken place and that the appeal court failed to examine whether the applicant had been duly summoned.   The Court therefore 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. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Gümüş and Others v. Turkey (no. 40303/98)   The applicants are five Turkish nationals. Two are practising lawyers, one is a lecturer at the Law Faculty of Kocaeli University, one is a member of the TESİŞ Workers’ Union and one is a member of the Municipal Workers’ Union.   In March 1992 two newspapers ( Diyarbakır Söz and Felak ) carried a press statement criticising Turkey’s handling of the Kurdish problem, which had been drafted by a delegation including the applicants as well as two former Turkish parliamentarians, Leyla Zana and Hatip Dicle, and 20 representatives of various political parties and public organisations. The applicants were convicted of incitement to hatred and hostility and given a suspended prison sentence and fine. They complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that they were tried and convicted by Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was not independent or impartial. They also relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court considered that the conviction complained of constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, that of protecting territorial integrity. It also took into account the background to the case and, in particular, the problems linked to the prevention of terrorism. In that connection, the Court observed that the press statement in question consisted of a critical assessment of Turkey’s policies concerning the Kurdish problem.   However, although certain particularly acerbic passages of the article painted an extremely negative picture of the Turkish State and thus give the narrative a hostile tone, they did not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. The   applicants’ conviction was therefore disproportionate to the aims pursued and not “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Articles 10 and 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 2,000, each, for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Kılınç v. Turkey (no. 48083/99) Özüpek and Others v. Turkey (no. 60177/00) Şirin v. Turkey (no. 47328/99)   The applicants are all Turkish nationals: Mükremin Kılınç, born in 1959 and living in Ankara; Osman Özüpek and Duran Özdemir, born in 1973 and 1965 respectively and living in Ankara and Hüseyin Avni Yazıcıoğlu, born in 1960 and living in Trabzon; and, Nurettin Şirin, born in 1964 and living in Istanbul.   Kılınç Özüpek and Others In 1997 the Culture and Education Department of the Sincan District, Ankara, organised an event called “Jerusalem Night” which included a play about the struggle of the Palestinian people. The applicants helped organise the evening, Mr Kılınç in his capacity of District Deputy Mayor and the others as employees of the department. The applicants were all convicted by Ankara State Security Court of having disseminated propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah. They were each sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment and debarred from public service for three years. They appealed unsuccessfully.   Şirin - In 1997, the applicant made a speech about the liberation movement in Palestine and praised the Muslim leaders who worked for the liberation of Jerusalem. He was convicted by Ankara State Security Court of being a member of an illegal organisation and sentenced to 17 years and six months imprisonment. He appealed unsuccessfully.   In all three cases the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that they had not received a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal.   The applicants in Kılınç and Şirin further maintained that the principle of equality of arms was violated since they were not notified of the public prosecutor’s observations at the appeal stage in their proceedings, relying on Article   6 §   3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence).   In each case the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, given the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which had tried the applicant or applicants. The Court also held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to examine the remaining complaints submitted under Article 6 § 3.   The Court further considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in Kılınç and Özüpek and Others. In Kılınç the Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim and, in Özüpek and Others , awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. In Şirin no claim for just satisfaction was submitted by the applicant within the specified time-limit. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Mark Wood v. the United Kingdom (no. 47441/99)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Mark Wood, is a United Kingdom national, living in Preston, England.   He complained about his detention ordered by the magistrates for non-payment of poll-tax and the lack of legal aid (representation). He relied on Articles 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair hearing and right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive GBP 5,508 (approximately EUR 7,889) for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (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.