CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 septembre 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 } .s2CBCE082 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:288pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF8C9CAAF { width:18.14pt; display:inline-block } .s1F8597E2 { width:129.42pt; display:inline-block } .sD31CCF7E { width:91.46pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s5418B97B { width:144.79pt; display:inline-block } .s80B308D1 { width:58.1pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4C7FD0AC { width:234.92pt; display:inline-block } .sCC71769C { width:14.55pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   481 22.9.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Summaries of the 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. Violations of Article 6 § 1 Mavroudis v. Greece (no. 72081/01)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Perikis Mavroudis, a Greek national, was born in 1948 and lives in Salonika (Greece).   On 10 February 1989 the applicant was appointed as a lecturer in Byzantine music (theory and notation). However, the vice-chancellor of the university refused to validate his appointment on the ground that the applicant was convicted of plagiarism.   On 29 December 1989 Mr Mavroudis applied to the Greek courts for judicial review of the vice-chancellor’s refusal to validate his appointment. The administrative courts found for the applicant on four occasions. However, the special selection panel (Ειδικό Εκλεκτορικό Σώμα) of the Musical Studies Department of the University systematically refused to appoint Mr   Mavroudis to the post in question. The applicant brought two sets of proceedings against the university for damages, the first on 25 October 1996 and the second on 28 December 1998. Both sets of proceedings are currently pending before the Greek courts.   The applicant complained before the European Court of Human Rights of the refusal by the Salonika University to appoint him to the post of lecturer despite the fact that the Greek courts had found in his favour. He also complained of the length of the proceedings to which he had been a party. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the authorities had systematically refused to comply with the decisions given in the applicant’s favour. In thus refusing, for several years, to abide by the judgments of the Greek courts the domestic authorities deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect. Accordingly, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the right of access to a court.   With regard to the length of the proceedings the Court noted that the dispute relating to the applicant’s appointment to the post of lecturer had hitherto lasted more than 15 years and six months for several levels of jurisdiction. The first set of proceedings for damages had hitherto lasted more than eight years and eight months for three levels of jurisdiction and the second set more than six years and six months for two levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such periods were excessive and did not meet the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court accordingly held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the length of the proceedings.   The proceedings brought by the applicant were currently pending before the Greek courts. As the decisions awarding him sums of money could be overturned, the Court found that the applicant did not yet have a final and enforceable claim against the Greek State. Consequently, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had not been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Mavroudis EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Sigalas v. Greece (no. 19754/02)   Article 6 § 1 inapplicable The applicant, Ioannis Sigalas, is a Greek national. He was born in 1918 and lives in Athens.   In 1993 he lodged a criminal complaint against D.B. for making a false accusation and sought an order against him for payment of a nominal sum of 1,000 drachmas (GRD) (approximately EUR 3) by way of damages for non-pecuniary loss.   In November 1999 Athens Criminal Court sentenced D.B. to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended, and ordered him to pay GRD 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The conviction was upheld on appeal. On an appeal by D.B., the Court of Cassation found that the prosecution of the offence was time-barred and discontinued the proceedings on 11 December 2001. Subsequently, in February 2002, the applicant sued D.B., among others, in the civil courts claiming EUR 880,400 for non-pecuniary damage.   The applicant contended that his criminal complaint had not been dealt with because of the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court reiterated that the Convention did not guarantee a right to have third parties prosecuted or convicted. That was what the applicant appeared to be seeking, however, as he accepted that the claim for non-pecuniary damages that he had lodged together with his criminal complaint was a mere formality since he could in any event seek compensation for his “real” non-pecuniary damage in the civil courts. The fact that the prosecution was time-barred had not, moreover, resulted in the loss of Mr Sigalas’s civil claims against the accused since he had sued him in the civil courts.   Since the appeal in the criminal proceedings had been lodged with the sole aim of securing the accused’s criminal conviction and not to protect or uphold the applicant’s civil rights, the Court could not accept that the proceedings in question fell within the scope of application of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which was therefore inapplicable. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Hüseyin Erturk v. Turkey (no. 54672/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Hüseyin Ertürk, is a Turkish national. He was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   On 11 January 1994 he brought proceedings against his former employer seeking compensation for damage he had sustained as a result of an accident at work in 1985. The industrial tribunal dismissed his claim in April 1999 and, following an appeal, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment on 22 June 1999.   The applicant complained of the length and unfairness of the proceedings to which he had been a party. He relied, in particular, on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court declared the application admissible in respect of the complaint about the length of the proceedings and inadmissible in respect of the other complaints. It pointed out that the proceedings in question had lasted approximately five years and five months for two levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   180 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kalay v. Turkey (no. 16779/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Mr Abdullah Kalay, was born in 1967 and lives in Izmit (Turkey).   In November 1992 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of Izmit Security Directorate and was placed in custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TKP-ML/TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist, Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army). He was later detained on remand during which time he made numerous unsuccessful applications for release pending his trial.   On 12 June 2000 Istanbul State Security Court sentenced him to 32 years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of an illegal organisation and for armed robbery. His conviction was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted to Istanbul State Security Court on 15 May 2001. The court dismissed his request for release from detention on remand, citing the same grounds as were given in the previous decisions, that is, “the nature of the offence charged and the state of evidence”.   He was finally released on 28   December 2001. The case is now pending before the Istanbul 11th Assize Court.   The applicant alleged that the period of his detention on remand exceeded the reasonable time requirement of the Convention and that the criminal proceedings brought against him were unreasonably lengthy. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the part of the applicant’s complaint regarding the first period of his detention up to 12 June 2000 was introduced out of time and was therefore inadmissible.   Whilst it took note of the seriousness of the crime attributed to the applicant and the severity of the relevant punishment, the Court noted a lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic court’s decisions to prolong the applicant’s remand in custody. It considered that the second period of detention which lasted seven and half months was unduly long, particularly considering the eight and a half years on remand which the applicant had already undergone.   In relation to the applicant’s complaint regarding the length of criminal proceedings, the Court found, as it had done previously in similar cases, that the length of the proceedings, which lasted more than 12 years, was excessive.   It therefore held unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant   EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,200 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Repetitive Cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Marinovi ć v. Croatia (application no. 24951/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Dijana Marinović, a Croatian national, was born in 1965 and lives in Požega (Croatia).   In June 1991 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident caused by a member of the Yugoslav People’s Army (“the YPA”). She successfully brought a civil action against the State in August 1993 before Požega Municipal Court seeking damages.   In November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force and the proceedings were stayed.   The applicant complained that the entry into force of the 1999 Amendments Act violated her right of access to a court. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings were stayed for a period of about three years and nine months between the dates when the 1999 Amendments Act and the 2003 Liability Act entered into force. It found that the fact that the applicant was prevented by legislation from having her civil claim determined by the domestic courts for such a long time constituted a violation of her right of access to a court. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 13. The applicant was awarded 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Butsev v. Russia (no. 1719/02) Denisenkov v. Russia (no. 40642/02) The applicants, Mr Viktor Grigoryevich Butsev and Mr Vladimir Nikolayevich Denisenkov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1953 and live in Shakhty, Rostov Region (Russia) and Rostov-on-Don (Russia) respectively.   Both applicants were awarded compensation, to be paid on a monthly basis, for ill-health they suffered after being exposed to radioactive emissions linked to the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in 1986. They both sued their local pension authorities considering that the amount of compensation they were to receive had been determined incorrectly. The courts awarded both applicants compensation which was to be index-linked in line with changes to the minimum monthly wage.   According to Mr Butsev and Mr Denisenkov, the awards in their favour were enforced with substantial delays   Both applicants complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of judgments in their favour, relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court concluded that, by failing for a substantial period of time to take the necessary measures to comply with final judicial decisions, the Russian authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the fact that it was impossible for the applicants to obtain the execution of the judgments in question for a substantial period of time constituted an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, for which the Russian Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in both cases.   The Court awarded EUR 4,500 to Mr Butsev and EUR 3,000 to Mr Denisenkov for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are only available in English.)   Uysal and others v. Turkey (no. 13101/03)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The eight applicants, Tuncay Uysal, Nazım Uysal, Hasan Uysal, İsmail Uysal, Mehmet Uysal, Emine Taşkın, Nermin Aklan and Gülten Eğe, are Turkish nationals. Born in 1947, 1956, 1942, 1952, 1946, 1949, 1961 and 1954 respectively, they live in Mersin (Turkey).   The applicants complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of delays in the payment of compensation due to them following the expropriation of their property . Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they further complained of the length of the proceedings in question.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicants jointly EUR 6,715 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.