CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 décembre 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 } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sDD8B7D40 { width:92.77pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s44376A36 { width:106.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sB0375EB1 { width:171.49pt; display:inline-block } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD3A0B818 { width:62.3%; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s9F09F181 { width:19.68%; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s33BB3BD2 { width:18.02%; vertical-align:top } .sE099AA7A { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sE538A579 { width:32.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1740BDC4 { width:48.15pt; 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   675 8.12.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly settlement 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 in the second part of this press release.       Violation of Article 2 Kanlıbaş v. Turkey (application no 32444/96)   Violation of Article 3 The applicant, Hüseyin Kanlıbaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). He is the brother of Ali Ekber Kanlıbaş, a local PKK leader who died in January 1996 during an armed confrontation with the security forces.   On 7 January 1996 the gendarmerie forces on duty in the Kangal area were informed that a group of about ten armed PKK militants had moved into the surroundings of the neighbouring village of Yellice. A military operation was launched in the morning of the following day and at about midday a very violent clash began between the security forces and the militants they were hunting. When the military action ceased at about 6 a.m. on 9 January 1996, three soldiers had been wounded and five of the attackers, including Ali Ekber Kanlıbaş, killed.   An investigation was immediately opened and the bodies were taken to Sivaş for examination by forensic medical experts. The external examination of the body later identified as that of Ali Ekber Kanlıbaş revealed that he had a bullet wound which had destroyed his left eye, a wound ten centimetres square at the level of his right shoulder, two chest wounds and two more wounds over the left kidney and that a 20-centimetre-long section of his leg had been “destroyed”. In the light of those findings, the forensic medical officer decided that it was not necessary to conduct an autopsy and concluded that Mr Kanlıbaş had died as a result of severe haemorrhaging caused by bullet wounds.   On 13 January 1996 Mr Kanlıbaş’s body was handed over to the applicant. Helped by others, he took the body out of its coffin to wash it in accordance with religious tradition. He then noticed that the eye socket was empty and that both ears had been mutilated. On the left side of the torso there was a hole of a diameter such that it could not have been the entry wound caused by an ordinary bullet, and on the right side there were bruises mingled with what could be seen to be prints left by bootsoles, suggesting that the deceased had been kicked. On the right thigh blood was still flowing from a projectile wound and bloodstains could be seen on the underclothes. On 24 January 1996 the applicant wrote to the Human Rights Association in Diyarbakır complaining, among other matters, of the mutilations inflicted on his brother’s dead body.   On 8 May 1998 the Kangal public prosecutor’s office discontinued proceedings against “the forces of the Amasya command post and the security forces” accused “of negligence in the performance of judicial duties, of transgressing the threshold of absolute necessity [for the use of force] and of ill-treatment”.   The applicant submitted that the Turkish authorities had not conducted an appropriate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of his brother. He relied on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that an official investigation was in fact opened by the Sivaş public prosecutor’s office. However, the Court was not convinced that the prosecuting authorities and the military authorities concerned had acted with the speed, impartiality and determination necessary to establish as thoroughly as possible the circumstances of the armed clash and the responsibilities arising from it. The mere fact that the Turkish Government had been unable to list all the troops who had taken part in the engagement illustrated the incomplete and inadequate nature of the inquiry. Moreover, the applicant had been practically excluded from the judicial investigation. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the inadequacy of the investigation conducted in the case.   As to the investigation into the mutilations found on Ali Ekber Kanlıbaş’s body, the Court observed that the Government had not been able to show that the Turkish authorities had done everything in their power to identify and question the soldiers who had taken an active part in the fighting. That was sufficient ground for the finding that the investigation had not been effective. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3, in respect of the applicant, on account of the inadequacy of the investigation conducted into the mutilations.   The Court awarded Hüseyin Kanlıbaş EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. It also awarded EUR 12,500 to the dependants of his deceased brother for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     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 6 § 1 Gili and Others v. Greece (no. 14173/03)   Violation of Article 13 Renieri and Others v. Greece (no. 14165/03) Georgopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 25324/03) Giakoumeli and Others v. Greece (no. 15689/03) In the above four cases the applicants complained of the length of administrative proceedings they had brought. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In each of these cases the Court held unanimously that Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 had been breached. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,750 in the case of Gili and Others v. Greece , EUR 4,000 in the cases of Renieri and Others v. Greece and Georgopoulos and Others v. Greece and EUR 5,000 in the case of Giakoumeli and Others v. Greece . In addition, in each case, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Cuccaro Granatelli v. Italy (no. 19830/03) Federici v. Italy (No. 2) (nos. 66327/01 and 66556/01) Frateschi v. Italy (no. 68008/01)   Quattrini v. Italy (no. 68189/01)   Friendly settlement   In the preceding four Italian cases, the applicants complained that they were unable to recover possession of their apartments over an extended period, owing to a lack of police assistance. They also complained about the length of the eviction proceedings. 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.)     In the cases of Cuccaro Granatelli , Federici and Frateschi, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants the following amounts, in euros, for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.     Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Cuccaro Granatelli v. Italy 8,000 3,500 Federici v. Italy (No. 2) 12,000 5,000 Frateschi v. Italy 10,000 2,000   The Quattrini case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR   11,711.10 is to be paid to the applicant for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) ( Cuccaro Granatelli and Quattrini are available only in French, and Federici and Frateschi are available only in English.)     Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (no. 58858/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Stefano Guiso-Gallisay, Gian Francesco Guiso-Gallisay and Antonella Guiso-Gallisay, are Italian nationals who were born in 1959, 1948 and 1952 respectively and live in Milan and Rome.   They were formerly the owners of land which was occupied by the administrative authorities with a view to its expropriation and on which those authorities commenced construction work. In the absence of any formal expropriation accompanied by compensation, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupation of their land.   The applicants alleged that the occupation of their land had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the loss of any power to dispose of the land in question, together with the impossibility of securing redress, amounted to a de facto expropriation incompatible with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision and therefore reserved it. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Mikryukov v. Russia (no. 7363/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Mikryukov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Rostov-on-Don (Russia).   The applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a consequence, he was entitled to free housing. On 19 December 2001 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don ordered the Kirovskiy District Administration to provide the applicant and his family with new accommodation within three months of the judgment date.   The judgment was never enforced due to lack of available housing.   The applicant complained that the continued non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour violated his right of access to a court and his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   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 judgment in question has not been enforced for more than three years, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. Therefore, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court also held that the Government was to secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the domestic court, and, in addition, to pay the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   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.