CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 août 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s665550A { width:70.09pt; display:inline-block } .sE42F13A4 { width:50.81pt; display:inline-block } .s394590EB { width:82.13pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sD576774C { width:202.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s576424CE { width:74.8pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   425 2.8.2005   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 six Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] . (These judgments are all in French.)   Repetitive cases (in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights) can be found at the end of this press release.     Ouattara v. France (application no. 57470/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Amadou Outtara, is a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in Toulouse (France).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings which were brought after he had lodged a complaint alleging fraud and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the proceedings in issue had lasted more than 11 years and six months to date. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a length of time did not fulfil the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 §   1 and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention in that respect.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000   for costs and expenses.   Kolu v. Turkey (no. 35811/97)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) The applicant, Mustafa Kolu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971. At the relevant time he was a trainee hairdresser and lived in Adıyaman (Turkey).   On the evening of 27 February 1995 the applicant was arrested in the Eskisaray district by police officers on patrol. He was taken to a police station and placed in police custody. While in custody, the applicant admitted to having carried out several dozen burglaries. On 28   February 1995 he signed a written statement in which he admitted, in particular, that he had entered the home of two school teachers, had threatened them with a weapon and had gagged and bound them before taking their money. One of the two women identified him “unambiguously” on the basis of a photograph, although at the time of the break-in the applicant had been wearing a black stocking over his head, thus obscuring his face.   The applicant was brought before Adıyaman Assize Court and charged with unlawful entry and aggravated theft. He denied the accusations and maintained that he had been forced to confess under torture. By a judgment of 21 March 1996, the assize court convicted the applicant of theft, aggravated by unlawful imprisonment, and sentenced him to 33 years and four months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   In application of Amnesty Act No. 4616 of 22 December 2000, the applicant was released in December 2000.   The applicant alleged that he had been tried and convicted in violation of his defence rights and of the principles of fairness, in breach of Article 6 (right to a fair trial). In addition, relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law), he alleged that he had been sentenced to a longer sentence than that provided for in the legislation governing the offence with which he was charged.   With regard to the investigation stage, the Court observed that the applicant must have been questioned on at least two occasions before signing the written statements, since reference was made in the second document to another interview, and even to confessions made on another previous occasion. Although the circumstances of those interviews remained imprecise, it was clear that the applicant had made several self-incriminating statements. There was nothing to suggest that he had done so in the presence of a lawyer or after having been informed of his right to be assisted by a lawyer. There was nothing to suggest that the applicant would have declined the assistance of a lawyer, as any such refusal had to be unequivocal.   Furthermore, serious doubts persisted with regard to the attitude taken by the police officers during questioning: it had not been shown that they had informed the applicant of his right to remain silent, which was a troubling omission given that, to all intents and purposes, the applicant had been kept in solitary confinement throughout his period in police custody. If only on account of the severity of those conditions, interviews conducted in such circumstances could not fail to exert psychological coercion, which would make it more likely that the silence - which the applicant had undoubtedly never been given the right to maintain - would be broken.   The authorities were obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure that the applicant was not deprived of the assistance of a lawyer during questioning. Such deprivation could not fail to have adverse effects on the defence rights that Article 6 guaranteed to the applicant, especially as the statements by which he had incriminated himself had subsequently become key elements in the indictment and the prosecutor’s submissions.   With regard to the criminal proceedings, the applicant had, in practice, been denied not only the possibility of challenging the allegations made by his accusers but also, by the same token, an opportunity to challenge the use of confessions obtained in the absence of a lawyer and during police custody in solitary confinement, the conduct of which remained questionable.   In those circumstances, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the applicant had not had an opportunity to challenge the prosecution evidence which was held to confirm the veracity of his confession, which had been obtained in the absence of a lawyer and during police custody in solitary confinement. Having regard to that conclusion, and taking account of the fact that the applicant had been released, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 7.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   8,000   for the damage sustained and EUR   3,000   for costs and expenses.   Sadegül Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 61441/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Sadegül Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Izmit (Turkey).   Suspected of belonging to the illegal armed organisation TKP/ML-TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist-Leninist, Liberation Army of the Workers and Peasants of Turkey), the applicant, who was seven months pregnant at the time, was arrested and placed in police custody on 5 November 1992.   The applicant gave birth in prison. On 12 June 2000 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 32 years and six months’ imprisonment on account of her membership of the above-mentioned organisation and her participation in an armed robbery. The Court of Cassation overturned this conviction and sent the case back to the State Security Court. The case is still pending. The applicant was released on bail on 20 December 2001.   The applicant complained of the excessive length of her pre-trial detention, which she alleged had amounted to a breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   The Court observed that Ms Özdemir had been held in pre-trial detention for approximately seven years and seven months. It appeared that the orders by the Turkish courts for her continued detention had nearly always been worded in identical, not to say stereotyped, terms, such as “the nature of the alleged offences” and “the state of the evidence”, which concerned all of the accused, or by reference to the risk of evasion.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded unanimously that the applicant’s detention had been in violation of Article 5 § 3, and awarded her EUR 6,500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000   for costs and expenses.   Repetitive Cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of 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 expropriated 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 amount due to them was fixed and the date of payment. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property); in the case Karapınar v. Turkey , they further relied on Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair trial in a reasonable time).   Karapınar v. Turkey (no 49394/99) Taş and Others v. Turkey (no. 46085/99) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in both these cases and considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the case of Karapınar v. Turkey .   In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 24,873   in the case of Karapınar v. Turkey and EUR 19,425   in the case Taş and Others v. Turkey. In addition, in each of these cases, it awarded them EUR 1,000   EUR for costs and expenses.   Önder and Zeydan v. Turkey (no. 53918/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Faik Önder and Oktay Zeydan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1972 respectively. When the application was lodged, they were being held in Bergama Prison (Turkey). Mr Önder, who was suffering from Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome, was released under a presidential amnesty in 2003.   The applicants, who were sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment by the Izmir State Security Court on account of their membership of the illegal armed organisation DHKP/C (Revolutionary Party for the Liberation of the People/Front), alleged that they had not received a fair trial, particularly on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court. They also complained of the severity of the sentence imposed on them. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 7 (no punishment without law).   The Court declared the application lodged by Mr Zeydan inadmissible in that it was out of time and that of Mr   Önder admissible only in so far as it concerned Article 6 § 1. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 with regard to the complaint alleging the State Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality and that it was accordingly unnecessary to examine separately the other complaints under Article 6.   The Court considered unanimously that its judgment in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by Mr Önder and awarded him EUR   1,500   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.