CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 octobre 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 } .s4339636E { width:79.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2009959B { width:33.98pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sE1871A4B { width:4.62pt; display:inline-block } .s94407937 { width:17.3pt; display:inline-block } .s636F3465 { width:13.3pt; display:inline-block } .s97AF86F8 { width:9.31pt; display:inline-block } .s910ECD9B { width:16.63pt; display:inline-block } .sEE69EB82 { width:136.82pt; display:inline-block } .s928910E5 { width:150.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sF27799AC { width:119.48pt; display:inline-block } .s5CD26361 { font-family:Arial; color:#008000 } .s8F4FBF72 { width:193.48pt; display:inline-block } .s317C4213 { width:146.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA8792699 { width:43.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s49757089 { width:122.79pt; display:inline-block } .sFFD55FA5 { width:273.52pt; display:inline-block } .s1B3C3BF3 { width:261.5pt; display:inline-block } .sF6D88F1 { width:263.52pt; display:inline-block } .sDFB91797 { width:79.47pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE74DCF { width:142.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6C0D45E1 { width:250.81pt; display:inline-block } .s4985FFA1 { width:116.19pt; display:inline-block } .s63CBF4AE { width:265.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9DBFF38B { width:264.83pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s1CE46D17 { border-right-style:dotted; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s73D5BC0 { border-right-style:dotted; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:dotted; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s5E29CA0C { border-left-style:dotted; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s906214E8 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:dotted; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:dotted; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5808A7F { border-style:solid dotted dotted; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3BB9B6B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:dotted; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:dotted; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4A48F2A3 { border-top-style:dotted; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:dotted; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:dotted; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49D4E194 { border-style:dotted; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s57590B63 { border-top-style:dotted; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:dotted; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:dotted; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s42B97954 { border-top-style:dotted; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:dotted; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49B7A18B { border-top-style:dotted; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:dotted; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:dotted; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2A72ED76 { border-top-style:dotted; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:dotted; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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   506 4.10.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Poland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 28 Chamber judgments, of which only the striking-out judgment is final [1] .   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. Górski v. Poland (Application no. 28904/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Jarzyński v. Poland (no. 15479/02) Kankowski v. Poland (no. 10268/03) Krawczak v. Poland (no. 17732/03) The applicants, Wojciech Górski, Dariusz Jarzyński, Adam Kankowski and Janusz Krawczak, are Polish nationals.   In the course of 1999, the applicants were detained on remand as they were suspected of having committed one or more armed robberies. The authorities refused the applicants’ numerous applications for release as they held that, in view of the severity of the penalty to which they were liable, there was a serious risk that the applicants might abscond, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the proceedings. The applicants have been kept in detention pending trial for periods ranging from four to over six-and-a-half years.   All the applicants complained that the length of their detention on remand had been excessive. They relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights accepted that the suspicion against the applicants of having committed the offences and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings might initially have justified their detention. However, with the passage of time, those grounds became less relevant and – even taking into consideration the argument about the severity of the anticipated sentence – could not suffice to justify the entire period in question.   The Court concluded that the grounds given by the domestic authorities were not “sufficient” and “relevant” in terms of justifying the length of the applicant’s detention and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The applicants were awarded non-pecuniary damage as follows:   Górski     1,000 euros (EUR)   Jarzyński   EUR 2,000   Kankowski   EUR 2,000 Krawczak   EUR 1,000 Krawczak was also awarded EUR 500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 Cangöz v. Turkey (no. 28039/95)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Cafer Cangöz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957. He is currently detained in Bayrampaşa Prison in Istanbul.   On 15 June 1995 he was arrested by the security forces as part of an operation being conducted against the illegal organisation TKP/ML-TIKKO (Liberation Army of the Workers and Peasants of Turkey). He was taken into custody at the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul security police.   On 28 June 1995 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert, who observed a number of grazes on his right shoulder and a wound with a scab on his left shoulder. Later that day he was brought before a judge, who ordered his detention pending trial.   The applicant was prosecuted under Article 168 § 1 and Article 350 of the Criminal Code, which govern the offences of forming armed groups with the intention of committing offences against the State and the public authorities, and using false identity papers. He was tried by Istanbul State Security Court, where he repeated his allegations that during his time in police custody he had been given electric shocks and been subjected to “Palestinian hanging” (suspension by the arms with the hands tied behind the back).   Following a criminal complaint by the applicant, the police officers in whose custody he had been detained were prosecuted under Article 243 of the Criminal Code, which governs the offence of subjecting detainees to torture with a view to obtaining confessions or information. The proceedings ended on 19 November 2002 when the Assize Court ruled that the prosecution was time-barred.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected while in police custody. He also complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the length of time he had spent in police custody.   The Court noted that the Turkish Government had not provided any explanation as to the cause of the marks observed on the applicant’s body and that he had been detained for 13 days without any access to a lawyer. Having regard to the evidence before it and to the Government’s lack of any plausible explanation on the subject, the Court found it established that the injuries noted in the medical report had resulted from inhuman treatment for which Turkey bore responsibility. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   As regards the length of the applicant’s detention in police custody, the Court considered that although the activities of which he stood accused were linked to a terrorist threat, it could not accept that it had been necessary to detain him for 13 days without judicial intervention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   As the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court made no such award. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Çıtıkbel v. Turkey (no. 497/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Recep Çıtıkbel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Tekirdağ (Turkey).   The applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for an offence against the constitutional order, which had ended in May 2003 when he was sentenced to the death penalty, commuted to life imprisonment. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in issue had lasted more than ten years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 7 Ünsal Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 29365/95)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Ünsal Öztürk, is a Turkish national, born in 1957 and lives in Ankara. He is the owner of “Yurt Books and Publishing”, a small independent firm that has published numerous books in Turkey.   The applicant published certain books between 1991 and 1994 which were held by State Security Court to constitute propaganda against the indivisible unity of the State. In most cases he was convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3712), fined and sentenced to periods of imprisonment ranging from six months to two years.   His sentences were commuted to fines following changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Act in October 1995. In August 1997 Law No. 4304 on the deferment of the judgments and of the execution of sentences in respect of offences committed by editors before 12 July 1997 came into force and the applicant’s ongoing criminal proceedings were suspended.   Most of the books were confiscated.   In all, the applicant served a total of one year, five months and 20 days in prison and paid the equivalent of EUR 5,121 in fines.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that his successive convictions and sentences for disseminating separatist propaganda by publishing certain books was unforeseeable under domestic law and amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression and his right to property. He relied on Articles 7 (no punishment without law) and 10 (freedom of expression) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property).   The Court found, as it had done in previous cases raising similar issues that the imposition of a prison sentence on the applicant, a publisher of books, under Article 8 § 2 of Law No. 3713, in its form at the material time, was incompatible with the principle of “no penalty without a law” embodied in Article 7. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 7.   As to the complaints under Article 10, for practical reasons the Court was selective in its analysis and only took into account the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant under Article 8 § 2 of Law No. 3713. The Court found that neither the conviction nor the sentence of the applicant was prescribed by law. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 in respect of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for his role in the publication of books.   The Court also held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints concerning his convictions under other domestic legal provisions I relation to Article 10, or the confiscation of certain books in relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 14,500 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Falkovych v. Ukraine (no. 64200/00)   Struck out The applicant, Valeriy Mykhaylovych Falkovych, is a Ukrainian national, born in 1960, who lives in Kiev. He is a former Deputy General Director of the Yedyni Energetychni Systemy Ukrayiny company (Y.E.S.U.).   In August 2000 the applicant was interrogated as a witness in a criminal investigation against the Y.E.S.U. company and was subsequently arrested and charged with embezzling funds and held in custody. He absconded after his release from detention in August 2001 and his whereabouts are unknown.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that he was arrested and detained unlawfully in the absence of any prompt judicial supervision and that his appeal against the resolution authorising his detention was unfairly rejected without proper consideration. He also alleged that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints about detention.   He relied on Articles 5 §§ 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In July 2004 the Court sent several letters to the applicant’s lawyer requesting information. In July 2005 the lawyer sent a power of attorney, signed by the applicant in November 2000, but not the requested information.   The Court concluded that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application taking into account the lack of diligence of the applicant’s lawyer and the absence of any indication that the applicant himself wished to pursue the application. The Court unanimously decided to strike the case out of the list of pending cases. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Shannon v. the United Kingdom (no. 6563/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, William Shannon, is an Irish national, born in 1948 and living in Belfast. He was the chair of the Irish Republican Felons Club, a registered social club operating on the Falls Road, Belfast.   In May 1997, the Royal Ulster Constabulary searched the club’s premises and seized documents. A financial investigator appointed under the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 interviewed the applicant and he was later charged with false accounting and conspiracy to defraud. Two months later he was recalled for questioning by the financial investigators. Their enquiries sought to find out whether any person had benefited from theft or false accounting, contributing to the resources of a proscribed organisation or from contraventions of betting regulations.   The applicant’s solicitor wrote to the financial investigators explaining that he had advised the applicant not to attend the interview as any answers he gave could be used as evidence against him at the trial and would compel him to disclose his defence. The applicant was subsequently fined for failing, without a reasonable excuse, to comply with the financial investigator’s requirement to answer questions.   The applicant appealed to Belfast County Court who found in his favour. The prosecutor requested an appeal.   The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland upheld the applicant’s conviction, holding that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not apply to extra-judicial inquiries. It found that the fact that the information sought was potentially incriminating could not be used as a reasonable excuse for refusing to comply with a financial investigator’s requirements.   The prosecution for false accounting and conspiracy to defraud was never pursued.   The applicant alleged that his conviction and fine for failing to reply to questions about specific offences from financial investigators, where he had already been charged with the self-same offences, violated Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court found, contrary to the Government’s arguments, that the applicant was entitled to complain of an interference with his right not to incriminate himself, even though no such evidence was actually used in criminal proceedings.   It also found that the special problems of investigating crime in Northern Ireland did not warrant the coercive measures imposed on the applicant by the 1996 Order. In addition, it held that the applicant’s attendance at the interview might well have required him to give information on matters which could have arisen in the criminal proceedings for which he had been charged. It therefore concluded that the requirement for the applicant to attend the interview and to be compelled to answer questions in connection with events in respect of which he had already been charged with offences was not compatible with his right not to incriminate himself.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,750 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,200 for 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.   Maisons Traditionnelles v. France (no. 68397/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant company, Maisons Traditionnelles, is a private sole-proprietor company, incorporated under French law and based in Colmar (France). It owns a plot of land in Colmar on which it carried out building work.   On 12 April 1991 the applicant company instituted administrative proceedings for judicial review of an order by the City Council for the suspension of the building work on the ground that planning permission had now expired because no work had been carried out for more than a year. The proceedings ended on 8 November 2000 when the Conseil d’Etat dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant company.   The applicant company complained of the length of the proceedings to which it had been a party. It also alleged that the proceedings had been unfair because it had not been sent a copy of the Government Commissioner’s submissions and had been unable to reply to them, and because the Government Commissioner had taken part in the deliberations. It relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court observed that the proceedings had lasted nine years and more than six months for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Furthermore, referring to its case-law on the subject, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicant company’s complaint that it had not received a copy of the Government Commissioner’s submissions before the hearing and had not been able to reply to them at the end of the hearing. However, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the Administrative Court of Appeal and the Conseil d’Etat .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant company EUR 7,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Belitskiy v. Ukraine (no. 20837/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Golovin v. Ukraine (no. 3216/02)   Sidenko v. Ukraine (no. 19158/02)   Toropov v. Ukraine (no. 19844/02)     Morkotun v. Ukraine (no. 10072/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 and 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bozhko v. Ukraine (no. 3446/03) Chernobryvko v. Ukraine (no. 11324/02) Mikheyeva v. Ukraine (no. 44379/02)   Molchan v. Ukraine (no. 68897/01) Pastukhov v. Ukraine (no. 20473/02) Polovoy v. Ukraine (no. 11025/02) Ryabich v. Ukraine (no. 3445/03) Sivokoz v. Ukraine (no. 27282/03) Zhurba v. Ukraine (no. 7884/03)     Violation of Articles 6 § 1, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bitkivska v. Ukraine (no. 5788/02)   Nikishin v. Ukraine (no. 22993/02)   Svintitskiy and Goncharov v. Ukraine (no. 59312/00) Zyts v. Ukraine (no. 29570/02)   The applicants are all Ukrainian nationals who complained of the failure of the State authorities to execute a judgment in their favour. They all relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   All the applicants except Mr Belitskiy, Mr Golovin, Mr Morkotun, Mr Sidenko and Mr   Toropov also complained that their inability to enforce the final binding judgments had constituted an interference with the exercise of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Mrs Bitkivska, Mr Nikishin, Mr Svintitskiy, Mr Goncharov and Mr Zyts also alleged that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement proceedings, as required by Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for periods varying between two to five years, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in all of the cases above and additionally, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in 13 of the cases.   The Court further found that there was no effective remedy available to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in question which was caused by the authorities’ failure to take the necessary legislative or budgetary measures and found a violation of Article 13 in five of the above cases. Some of the applicants submitted other complaints which were declared inadmissible.   The Court awarded damages as follows:   Cases Non pecuniary (in euros) Pecuniary (in euros) Costs and expenses (in euros) Belitskiy 1,500 - Bitkivska 2,500 - - Bozhko 1,040 - Chernobryvko 2,000 - - Golovin 2,000 - 21 Mikheyeva 1,920 - - Molchan 2,520 - - Morkotun 2,800 - Nikishin 308 Pastukhov 7,900 - 100 Polovoy 1,155 - - Ryabich 1,080 - Sidenko 3,500 - Sivokoz - 1,500 12 Svintitskiy and Goncharov   Svintitskiy 1,500 100 Goncharov 1,400 100 Toropov 1,720 - Zhurba 1,000 - Zyts 1,500 -   (The judgments are available only in English, with the exception of those in the cases of Belitskiy, Bozhko, Morkotun, Ryabich, Sidenko, Sivokoz, Toropov and Zhurba , which are 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.