CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 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 } .s8A024B48 { width:70.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA5DF89D2 { width:148.12pt; display:inline-block } .sE5B530C3 { width:155.47pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s946EEA83 { width:34.77pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7CE27998 { width:97.48pt; 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   572 27.10.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Germany, the Netherlands and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final [1] .     Mathieu v. France (application no. 68673/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Ghislaine Mathieu, is a 56-year-old French national who lives in Roynac (France).   On 7 June 2000 the applicant was approached by two police officers in connection with her ownership of several American staffordshire terriers, with concern which she had not taken the measures required by the legislation on dangerous dogs. In view of the applicant’s behaviour and her claims that she was about to take her own life, a doctor was summoned to examine her and ordered that she be compulsorily admitted to Vinatier Psychiatric Hospital.   The following day, on 8 June, the prefect issued a compulsory hospital order in respect of the applicant on the ground that she represented an immediate threat to public order and individual safety, as she was “suffering from delusions of persecution and kept dogs classified as Category I without any regard for the relevant regulations”.   On 9 June 2000 the applicant lodged an application for immediate discharge which was dismissed by Lyons tribunal de grande instance on 20 October 2000.   In the meantime, the applicant had been allowed out of hospital for a trial period starting on 11   July 2000. The compulsory hospital order was revoked by the prefect on 9 November 2000.   Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the time taken by the French courts to decide on her application for immediate discharge.   The Court noted that the decision by the tribunal de grande instance on the application for immediate discharge lodged by the applicant on 9 June 2000 had been given on 20 October   2000, more than four months after the application had been lodged. Although the applicant had been allowed out of hospital on a trial basis on 11 July 2000, she had been liable to be re ‑ admitted at any moment until such time as the prefect’s order had been lifted and the court had given its decision.   In the circumstances the Court considered that, given the special context of the proceedings, the purpose of which was to obtain a speedy decision on an application for immediate discharge, the relevant authorities had not made their decision “speedily”. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. It awarded the applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Quillevère v. France (no. 61104/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Frédéric Quillevère, is a French national, aged 49, who lives in Toulon (France).   The applicant, who suffers from von Willebrand’s disease, a blood-clotting disorder similar to haemophilia, received several blood transfusions and injections in various hospitals between July   1980 and March 1985. In the process, he was given labile products supplied by the Toulon blood transfusion centre (CTS) in 1980, 1981 and 1985 and stable products supplied by the national blood transfusion centre (CNTS) in 1985. In May 1992 he was found to have contracted hepatitis C.   The applicant brought an action against the CTS and the CNTS seeking compensation for the damage he had suffered as a result of his contamination with the hepatitis C virus. The action was dismissed at first instance and on appeal on the ground that no causal link had been established. On 28 March 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant on points of law.   The applicant alleged that he had not had access to a court or received a fair hearing, and had been the victim of discrimination. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The affair has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 25,000. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Keles v. Germany (no. 32231/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Suca Keles, is a Turkish national, aged 44. At the time the application was lodged he lived in Lörrach (Germany). He now lives in Turkey.   In 1972 the applicant, then aged ten, moved to Germany to live with his family. He attended secondary school there until 1977. In 1984 he married a Turkish national in Turkey and they had a child two years later. In March 1988 he was granted a German permanent residence permit and his wife and son joined him in Germany the following year. The couple had three more children, one of whom has a learning handicap. All of the family members are Turkish nationals; his wife has a German permanent residence permit.   In 1983 the applicant was warned and informed that, in view of his previous convictions, he would face expulsion if he committed further criminal offences ( ausländerrechtliche Verwarnung ).     Between 1989 and 1999 the applicant was convicted eight times of criminal offences. Four of those related to traffic offences for which he served prison sentences of five and six months.   On 22 January 1999 Freiburg Regional Government ( Regierungspräsidium ) ordered the applicant’s expulsion to Turkey or to any other State willing to accept him. Applying sections 47 § 2 and 48 § 1 of the Aliens Act, it noted the applicant’s repeated criminal convictions, in particular those for traffic offences.   On 3 May 1999 he was deported to Turkey. He returned to Germany later that month and made a request for asylum. His request was rejected and he went into hiding. In July 2003 he was arrested and kept in detention until he was again deported to Turkey in August 2003.   The applicant complained about his expulsion to Turkey, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court considered that, taking into account the nature of the applicant’s offences, the duration of his lawful stay in Germany, the fact that he had been in possession of a permanent residence permit, and the difficulties which the applicant’s children could be expected to face if they followed him to Turkey, an unlimited exclusion from German territory violated the applicant’s rights to the enjoyment of his private and family life. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court made no award for just satisfaction as no request was submitted by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Schenkel v. the Netherlands (no. 62015/00)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 The applicant, Egbert Schenkel, is a Netherlands national, aged 52 who is currently in a custodial clinic in the Netherlands.   In June 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on suspicion of having attacked two people. In October 1996, Amsterdam Regional Court found him guilty of attempted homicide and assault. Given that the applicant was mentally disturbed, and had a history of violent offences, the court ordered that the applicant be confined in a custodial clinic ( terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ; “TBS order”). The TBS order took effect in November 1996. Pending his admission to the clinic, the applicant was held in pre-placement detention in an ordinary remand centre. On 9 November 1998 the court decided to extend the TBS order for a further period of two years. The applicant appealed.   He was admitted to a custodial clinic in March 1999.   Following a hearing held on 8 May 2000, Arnhem Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 9   November 1998 and prolonged the applicant’s TBS order by two years on different grounds. In August 2000, the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the court, requesting a copy of the official record of the hearing.   He was informed that no formal record had been drawn up.   The applicant complained that the procedures concerning the prolongation of his confinement in a custodial clinic were in breach of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), and that his appeal against the decision to prolong his confinement was not determined “speedily”, as required by Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). He also complained that his appeal was not determined within a reasonable time in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court found that Arnhem Court of Appeal did not respect the procedure prescribed by domestic law and by failing to draw up an official record of the hearing held on 8 May 2000 it was in breach of Article 5 § 1. The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court considered that the amount of time taken to determine the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Amsterdam Regional Court of 9 November 1998 (more than 17   months) amounted to a breach of the speed requirement of Article 5 § 4. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The applicant maintained that the proceedings on the request for a prolongation of his TBS order had exceeded a reasonable time. The Court considered that that complaint did not raise any issue not already examined in the context of Article 5. Consequently, it did not find it necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded the applicant EUR 3,236.35 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Ali Erol v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 47796/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Ali Erol, was a Turkish national born in 1952, who lived in Istanbul. Following his death in August 2004 the European Court of Human Rights granted his widow permission to continue the proceedings.   The applicant was editor of the daily newspaper Evrensel (Universal) which, in December 1995, published an article entitled “Confessions of a non-commissioned officer”. The article consisted of an interview in question-and-answer form with a non-commissioned officer who had performed his military service in south-east Turkey, and focused in particular on hostile attitudes among members of the military towards the Kurds.   Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on the basis of Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code, which made it a punishable offence to incite others to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between races and between regions. On 9 May 1996 Istanbul State Security Court sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine, and banned publication of the newspaper in question for 20 days. The court considered that, in addition to inciting others to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between races and between regions, the article had caused popular disaffection with military service, an offence under Article 155 of the Criminal Code. The applicant lodged an unsuccessful appeal on points of law.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression. He further alleged, on the basis of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that the State Security Court which had tried and convicted him had not constituted “an independent and impartial tribunal” capable of guaranteeing a fair trial, on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench.   The Court reiterated that the dominant position which the Government occupied made it necessary for it to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means were available for replying to unjustified attacks and criticisms from its opponents.   In that case the Court considered that the grounds advanced by the domestic authorities could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. While some particularly virulent passages in the article painted an extremely negative picture of certain army units, thereby lending a hostile tone to the article, that did not mean that they encouraged the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection. In the Court’s view, that was a factor which it was essential to take into consideration. It found that the applicant’s conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. Consequently it held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   In addition, as it had done on several previous occasions in similar cases, the Court found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the complaint concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant’s widow EUR 3,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 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.