CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 avril 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 } .s478156A1 { width:13.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB0BA28C7 { width:144.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .sBC931E67 { width:149.57pt; 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   197 12.4.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Mařík v. the Czech Republic (application no. 73116/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Bohumir Mařík, is a Czech national who was born in 1929 and lives in Dana Point (United States).   He brought proceedings for the recovery of properties nationalised and sold by the State to third parties following his emigration during the 1970s. The trial courts dismissed his claims and a request for permission to appeal on points of law. He then lodged a constitutional appeal which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on the ground that he had not appealed on points of law.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), the applicant submitted that the rejection of his constitutional appeal for non-exhaustion of available remedies had infringed his right of access to a court.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that in Czech law an appeal on points of law was a special remedy not available as of right, permission to appeal being left to the discretion of the Supreme Court. It could therefore not be considered an effective remedy which the applicant could be criticised for not using.   The Constitutional Court’s particularly strict interpretation of the procedural rule in issue had deprived the applicant of the right of access to a court. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him 1000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).   Ertürk v. Turkey (no. 15259/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Hasan Ertürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Ankara.   On 21 November 1983 he was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Devrimci Yol - Revolutionary Way ) .   He was detained on remand from 30 December 1983 until 14 December 1988.   On 19 July 1989 he was convicted of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The judgment was quashed on December 1996. On 28 May 2004, following a re-trial, the applicant was convicted of attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. The proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings to date had lasted more than 21 years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessively long and failed to satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 14,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c)   No violation of Article 5   No violation of Article 5 in conjunction with Article 13 Whitfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 46387/99, 48906/99, 57410/00 and 57419/00)   This case concerns applications brought by four United Kingdom nationals concerning prison adjudication proceedings held following disciplinary incidents in the prison institutions in which they were detained.   The first applicant, Mr Steven Whitfield, was born in 1968 and is currently in prison in the Isle of Wight; the second, Mr Ronald Pewter, was born in 1961 and lives in London; the third, Mr Joslyn Gaskin, was born in 1980 and lives in Leeds; and the fourth, Mr Jonathan Clarke, was born in 1976 and died in June 2003.   Messrs Whitfield, Pewter and Clarke were charged with breaches of the Prison Rules. Mr Gaskin was charged with breaching the Young Offender Institution Rules. All four applicants were refused legal representation in the prison adjudication proceedings resulting from the alleged breaches. Mr Whitfield was found guilty of assault and sentenced to 21 additional days’ imprisonment. Mr Pewter was found guilty of intentionally or recklessly endangering the health and safety of others and sentenced to 35 additional days. Mr Gaskin was found guilty of assault and sentenced to 35 additional days. Mr Clarke was found guilty of a breach of prison discipline on the ground that he had allegedly thrown burning material from a cell window. He was sentenced to 18 additional days’ imprisonment, but was released after having served five days when the Secretary of State quashed the punishment imposed on him.   The applicants’ main complaints were as follows:   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) Mr Whitfield, Mr Pewter and Mr Gaskin challenged the independence and impartiality of the adjudicating body (the prison governor or the controller). All four applicants complained under Article 6 § 3 about the refusal to allow them legal representation, Mr Clarke also pointing to the denial of the opportunity to obtain any legal advice.   Mr Pewter and Mr Clarke further relied on Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention (prohibition of arbitrary detention and right to compensation for unlawful detention). Mr   Clarke invoked Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 5.   As to the alleged lack of independence and impartiality, the Court observed that persons answerable to the Home Office (whether as prison officer, governor or controller in the applicants’ prisons) drafted and laid the charges against the applicants, investigated and prosecuted those charges and determined the applicants’ guilt or innocence together with their sentences. It could not therefore be said that there was any structural independence between the prosecuting and adjudicating roles. The misgivings of Messrs Whitfield, Pewter and Gaskin about the independence and impartiality of their adjudications had accordingly been objectively justified. There had consequently been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in these respects as regards Messrs Whitfield, Pewter and Gaskin.   As to the refusal to allow legal representation, the Convention required that a person charged with a criminal offence who did not wish to defend himself in person had to be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing. The adjudicating body had considered that legal representation for each applicant’s adjudication hearing was unnecessary and, moreover, that Mr Clarke did not even need to consult his lawyer before his hearing. It followed that the applicants had been denied the right to be legally represented in violation of the guarantee contained in Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention and there had therefore been a violation of that provision as regards all four applicants.   No violation was found in respect of the Article 5 and Article 13 complaints.   The Court took the view that for Messrs Whitfield, Pewter and Gaskin the findings of violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction. Mr Clarke’s estate was awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Each of the applicants was awarded EUR 2,500 for 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. 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.