CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } .s6AC0F6D4 { width:22.13pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s7B540717 { width:218pt; display:inline-block } .sE71F8CAA { width:309.58pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; 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 } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; 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 } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; 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 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; 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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; 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   654 29.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Portugal, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 25 Chamber judgments, none of which 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.     Urbino Rodrigues v. Portugal (application no 75088/01)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Cesar Urbino Rodrigues, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bragança (Portugal). He is the editor of the Portuguese regional newspaper A Voz do Nordeste .   On 8 June 1999 the applicant’s newspaper published a critical article on the appointment of the Socialist Party’s branch chairman in Bragança to a post of educational coordinator in the Ministry of Education. In response to the article, I.P., deputy editor of another local newspaper, Mensageiro de Bragança , published an article on 18 June 1999 entitled “ A Voz do Nordeste tells barefaced lie”, which accused the competitor newspaper of lying and the applicant of making “stupid remarks”. In the 22 June 1999 edition of A Voz do Nordeste , the applicant in turn published a reply, in which he denounced the “mafia-style methods” used to keep him quiet and certain deliberate omissions by I.P.   I.P. lodged a criminal complaint and sought leave to intervene in the proceedings as an assistant of the prosecuting authority ( assistente ). On 20 October 2000 the Bragança court convicted the applicant of criminal libel and ordered him to pay a fine of 180,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) [2] or serve 120 days in prison, and to pay PTE 200,000 [3] in damages to I.P. Mr Urbino Rodrigues appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant alleged that his conviction for criminal libel amounted to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights noted that the issue behind this case was mainly an argument between two journalists, which had originated in the applicant’s criticisms about the possible appointment of a political figure to a post in the Ministry of Education. In the Court’s view, this was clearly a matter of general interest. The applicant and the complainant were both journalists and the limits of acceptable criticism were wider with regard to a journalist acting in his public capacity than in relation to a private individual.   The article for which the applicant was convicted had been published in response to a highly polemical article by I.P. In the Court’s view, the complainant, who was himself a journalist, had to display greater tolerance, especially when he himself, as in the present case, made public statements that were open to criticism. He was certainly entitled to have his reputation protected, even when he was not acting in his private capacity, but the requirements of that protection had to be weighed against the interests of open discussion of political issues.   In convicting the applicant, the Portuguese courts had considered that the libel was constituted by two expressions: his reference to “mafia-style methods” and his accusation that the complainant had deliberately omitted certain facts. The first expression consisted in a value judgment that could not be proved and which, taken in context, could not justify interference with freedom of the press as in the present case. As for the second expression, the Court agreed with the Portuguese courts that it was an attack on I.P.'s professional reputation but pointed out that the assertion was made in response to the complainant’s accusations.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that, whilst the grounds given by the Portuguese courts to justify the applicant’s conviction could be regarded as pertinent, they were insufficient and therefore did not meet any pressing social need. The Court also reiterated that it was the actual conviction that counted and the fact that the applicant had received but a light sentence was of no consequence.   The Court therefore found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant 1,900 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 13   No violation of Article 8   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   No violation of Article 14 Nuri Kurt v. Turkey (no. 37038/97) The applicant, Nuri Kurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The facts are in dispute between the parties.   According to the applicant, in December 1994 he and his fellow villagers had been compelled to leave their homes in Suçıktı after being threatened by State security forces and guards from a neighbouring village who, the following year, set fire to their homes. In May 1997 a commission, headed by a gendarme major, launched an investigation into the allegations. The commission concluded that the homes had been burnt down as a result of a fire which had spread from a neighbouring village and that no proceedings should be brought against the security forces and the village guards. Diyarbakır Regional Administrative Court upheld that finding.   In July 2000 a group of people, encouraged by village guards, settled in Suçıktı together with their livestock. In August 2000 the applicant filed a petition to have them evicted from his home and requested permission for his family’s return. He received no reply.   The Government claimed that the applicant and other villagers had left Suçıktı as they had been threatened by the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). They maintained that some houses in Suçıktı had been burnt down as a result of a fire which had spread from a neighbouring village but that the applicant’s house had not been damaged. Furthermore an investigation revealed that the applicant had leased his land to two villagers.   The applicant complained about the deliberate burning of his house by the State security forces and the refusal of the Turkish authorities to allow him to return to his village. He also complained that he had been denied an effective remedy by which to challenge the destruction of his house, including access to a court to assert his civil rights. He further maintained that, because of his Kurdish origin, he had been subjected to discrimination. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court found that the applicant did not provide enough evidence to corroborate many of his allegations. Therefore the Court could not find it established to the required standard of proof that the applicant’s house was destroyed by State security forces as alleged. Furthermore, the Court held that the applicant did not provide any information or evidence to substantiate his allegation that he was forced to leave and denied access to his village by State security forces. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court noted serious defects in the investigation conducted by the authorities. In particular, the appointment of a gendarme to investigate fellow gendarmes, along with other issues which cast serious doubts on the credibility of the investigation, led the Court to conclude that the investigation had not been thorough and effective. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   As to the applicant’s allegations under Article 14 the Court considered that they were unsubstantiated and held, unanimously, that there had been no violation.   The Court also held unanimously that it was unnecessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The applicant was awarded EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 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:     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aşga v. Turkey (no. 67240/01) Ekin and Others v. Turkey (no. 67249/01) Keltaş v. Turkey (no. 67252/01) Şaşmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 67140/01) The applicants are 11 Turkish nationals who live in Mersin (Turkey).   All the applicants were awarded sums of compensation after the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated their land in Mersin in order to build a motorway. The amounts were increased on appeal.   The applicants complained that the additional compensation for expropriation which they had obtained from the authorities had fallen in value, since the default interest payable had not kept pace with the very high rate of inflation in Turkey. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court found that the delay in paying the additional compensation awarded by the domestic courts was attributable to the expropriating authority and caused the owners a loss in addition to that of the expropriated land. As a result of that delay and the length of the proceedings as a whole, the Court found that the applicants had had to bear an excessive burden that upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the demands of the general interest and the protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It also found that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Evrim Çifti v. Turkey (no. 59640/00) Öncü and Others v. Turkey (no. 63357/00) In these two cases the applicants had been brought before a state security court and given prison sentences for belonging to or aiding and abetting illegal armed organisations. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants argued in particular that their case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench of state security courts.   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the lack of independence and impartiality of state security courts. As for the other complaints concerning the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to those subject to its jurisdiction. It accordingly considered that it was unnecessary to examine those other complaints.   As regards the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held, unanimously in both cases, that the present judgments constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It reiterated that when it found an applicant to have been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress was normally to ensure a retrial by an independent and impartial tribunal in due course.   In each of these cases the Court awarded EUR 1,500 to the applicants in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13 Belanova v. Ukraine (no. 1093/02) Buza v. Ukraine (no. 26892/03) Cherginets v. Ukraine (no. 37296/03) Grachevy and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 18858/03, 18923/03 and 22553/03) Ilchenko v. Ukraine (no. 17303/03) Karpova v. Ukraine (no. 12884/02) Kim v. Ukraine (no. 29872/02) Kurshatsova v. Ukraine (no. 41030/02) Nosal v. Ukraine (no. 18378/03) Rudenko v. Ukraine (no. 11412/02) Rybak v. Ukraine (no. 26996/03) Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 10905/02) Shevelev v. Ukraine (no. 10336/02) Skubenko v. Ukraine (no. 41152/98) Vishnevskaya v. Ukraine (no. 16881/03) Yukin v. Ukraine (no. 2442/03) Zakharov v. Ukraine (no. 17015/03) The applicants are all Ukrainian nationals. They complained about the State authorities’ failure to execute judgment in their favour due to lack of State funds.   With the exception of Buza and Yukin, all the applicants complained of a breach of Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   In the case of Buza , Cherginets , Grachevy and Others , Ilchenko , Kim , Kurshatosova , Nosal , Rudenko , Shevchenko , Vishnevskaya , Yukin and Zakharov the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In the case of Belanova , Cherginets , Nosal , Rybak and Shevchenko the applicants claimed that they had had no effective domestic remedy as required under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   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 many 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 except Buza and Yukin and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Buza , Cherginets , Grachevy and Others , Ilchenko , Kim , Kurshatosova , Nosal , Rudenko , Shevchenko , Vishnevskaya , Yukin and Zakharov .   The Court also held that the Government was to secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the awards made by the domestic courts in the cases of Karpova, Nosal, Vishnevskaya and Yukin .   The Court also found that there was no effective remedy available to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement of the judgments in question which was caused by the authorities’ failure to take the necessary legislative or budgetary measures. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13 in the cases of Belanova , Cherginets , Nosal , Rybak and Shevchenko .   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of the article or articles cited in each case and awarded the following sums in euros to the applicants.     Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Damage Costs & Expenses Belanova v. Ukraine (no. 1093/02) 2,880 50 Buza v. Ukraine (no. 26892/03) 1,300 - Cherginets v. Ukraine (no. 37296/03) 1,400 - Grachevy and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 18858/03, 18923/03 and 22553/03) 9,353 - Ilchenko v. Ukraine (no. 17303/03) 2,600 - Karpova v. Ukraine (no. 12884/02) 3,280 50 Kim v. Ukraine (no. 29872/02) 2,000 100 Kurshatsova v. Ukraine (no. 41030/02) 2,600 - Nosal v. Ukraine (no. 18378/03) 2,300 - Rudenko v. Ukraine (no. 11412/02) 1,920 - Rybak v. Ukraine (no. 26996/03) 1,640 - Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 10905/02) 1,100 200 Shevelev v. Ukraine (no. 10336/02) 1,560 - Skubenko v. Ukraine (no. 41152/98) 2,720 400 Vishnevskaya v. Ukraine (no. 16881/03) 2,040 10 Yukin v. Ukraine (no. 2442/03) 3,000 - Zakharov v. Ukraine (no. 17015/03) 1,640 -   (All of the judgments are only available in English except for Rybak, Shevelev, Kim, Buza and Yukin which are only available 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. [2] About 900 euros (EUR). [3] About EUR 1,000.