CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 mars 2006

.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 } .s598F7406 { width:16.07pt; display:inline-block } .s146D2459 { width:312.91pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC6EE66FD { width:97.47pt; display:inline-block } .s49832E2 { width:240.22pt; display:inline-block } .sC084C3B3 { width:21.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sBFDA3914 { width:272.18pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s9D67312E { width:242.49pt; 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   157 21.3.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Moldova and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Salé v. France (application no. 39765/04)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Christophe Salé, is a French national who was born in 1965 and lives in Petite Forêt (France).   Having been dismissed for gross negligence in September 2000, the applicant brought proceedings against his former employer, S.A. Fontaine-Desmoulins, in the course of which he lodged an appeal on points of law. In a judgment of 30 June 2004 the Employment Division of the Court of Cassation declared his appeal inadmissible, ruling that the grounds of appeal “were not such as to warrant admitting the appeal”. The ruling was given in accordance with Article L. 131-6 of the Code of Judicial Organisation, which introduced a special procedure for the consideration of appeals on points of law.   The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair, owing in particular to the fact that the reporting judge’s report had not been communicated to him, although it had been made available to the advocate-general; neither had he been informed of the tenor of the advocate-general’s submissions, and had therefore been unable to reply to them. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that, in the context of preliminary admissibility proceedings concerning appeals on points of law which resulted in a decision not to admit the appeal, the scope for legal debate as to the merit of the appeal was considerably reduced, given that the appeals in question were inadmissible or manifestly unfounded under Article L. 131-6.   Hence, it would have made no difference to the outcome of the case had the reporting judge’s report been communicated to the applicant and had he had the opportunity to reply to the advocate-general’s oral submissions by a note to the court in deliberations, as the legal solution applied in the preliminary admissibility proceedings, by its very nature, offered little scope for dispute. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 11   Violation of Article 13 Ademyılmaz and Others v. Turkey (nos. 41496/98, 41499/98, 41501/98, 41502/98, 41959/98, 41602/98 and 43606/98) The seven applicants, Nigar Ademyılmaz, Muazzez Onuk (Özder), Ahmet Mefahir Altındağ, Hüseyin Elçi, Nadir Bingöl, Haydar Kılıçoğlu and Abdulhalim Kaçmaz, are all Turkish nationals employed in the civil service. At the material time, they were all teachers in Diyarbakır and members of the trade union Eğitim-Sen , with the exception of Mr Bingöl, who was an engineer in the roads department and chairman of the local branch of the trade union Enerje Yapı Yol-Sen in Diyarbakır.   The applicants were all transferred to posts in other towns.   The applicants contended that they were transferred because they belonged to a trade union. They relied in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court considered that the decisions to transfer the applicants did not, in principle, restrict or prevent the exercise of their right to belong to a trade union or to exercise or enjoy freedom of association. The applicants had therefore maintained their rights both in law and in practice, despite the measures complained of, as they had continued to be members of the trade unions concerned and had not been prevented from engaging in trade union activity in their new posts or places of employment. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 11.   The Court noted that section 4 (g) of Legislative Decree No. 285 granted the governor of the state of emergency region wide-ranging powers with regard to transfers. As there was no remedy available under Turkish law to challenge the decision by the governor of the state of emergency region to transfer the applicants, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants 500 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Koç and Tambaş v. Turkey (no. 50934/99)   Violation of Article 10 The applicants, Tayfun Koç and Musa Tambaş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1972, respectively, and live in Istanbul. Mr Koç is the owner of the monthly magazine “Revolution for Equality, Liberty and Peace”, and Mr Tambaş is the editor-in-chief.   The case concerns three articles published by the applicants. Two of the articles contained a critical assessment of Turkey’s policies as regards what the author considered to be the Kurdish problem and the possible ways to reach a peaceful solution. The third article criticised, in particular, the policies of the Minister of Justice concerning prison conditions.   On 24 August 1998 İstanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants of disseminating propaganda against the “indivisible unity of the State” and of designating a person as a target. The court fined them and ordered the closure of the magazine for a month and that the relevant issues of the newspaper be confiscated.   Four days later Law No. 4454 concerning the suspension of pending cases and penalties in media-related offences entered into force and the applicants’ sentences were suspended for three years. The sentences were annulled on 6 June 2003, the court noting that the applicants had not committed any intentional offence since deferment of their sentences.   The applicants complained, in particular, that their criminal convictions had infringed their right to freedom of expression. They relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court considered that, the first two articles, taken as a whole, despite their sometimes hostile overtones, did not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. It also considered that the third article, read as a whole, could not be construed as having exposed the then Minister of Justice to a significant risk of physical violence.   The Court further observed that the suspended sentence imposed on the applicants had the effect of censoring their profession, compelling them to refrain from publishing anything likely to be considered to be contrary to the interests of the State.   The Court therefore concluded that, the applicants’ conviction was not necessary in a democratic society and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. It awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,299 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 2 Korkmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 35979/97)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicants, Safter Korkmaz, Cüneyt Tışkaya, Gonca Balyemez (Dönmezer) and Canan Kaya, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972, 1980, 1973 and 1972 respectively and live in Istanbul. At the material time, Mrs Balyemez was the owner and editor-in-chief of the left-leaning monthly publications Kızıl Bayrak (“The Red Flag”), Sosyalizm Yolunda Kızıl Bayrak (“The Red Flag and the Socialist Path”) and Ekim Gençliği (“October Youth”). Mr Korkmaz, Mr Tişkaya and Mrs Kaya were on the staff of the publishing house concerned.   Mrs Balyemez was arrested by the police on 5 November 1996 on suspicion of having links to the illegal organisation Ekim ; Mr Korkmaz, Mr Tışkaya and Mrs Kaya were apprehended the following day for the same reason. Their homes were searched and publications and documents supporting the organisation were seized. While in police custody the applicants were questioned on their relationship to a militant member of the organisation who was implicated in the killing of two police officers.   On 15 November 1996 the applicants were interviewed by the public prosecutor, who ordered their release and charged them with lending assistance to an illegal organisation. They were acquitted on 11 November 1998.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the applicants could be considered to have been arrested and detained on the basis of a “reasonable suspicion” of having committed a criminal offence. It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court further noted that there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the applicants had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest. The questions put to them in police custody had been sufficiently clear as to the nature of the offences of which they were suspected. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 2.   As to length of time spent by the applicants in police custody, the Court observed that it had amounted to nine and ten days respectively. The Court could not accept that it had been necessary to detain the applicants for that long before bringing them before a judge. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Finally, the Court reiterated that, as it had found in other cases, no adequate and effective remedy had existed at the time enabling the lawfulness of a period of police custody to be challenged in proceedings before the national security courts. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   4.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 12,500 jointly for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 1,250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Josan v. Moldova (no. 37431/02)   The applicant, Vera Josan, is a Modovan national who was born in 1931 and lives in Hagimus.   The applicant complained in particular that a final judgment awarding her compensation after her home was damaged following road construction work was quashed in supervisory review proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that a final and binding judgment in the applicant’s favour was set aside by a higher court in supervisory review proceedings, following an application by a public prosecutor, whose power to make such applications was not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely.   There had therefore been a breach of the principle of legal certainty and of the right of access to a court in the applicant’s case. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that the setting aside of the judgment in supervisory review proceedings violated Article 6 § 1.   The Court recalled that the sums awarded to the applicant by the judgment in question could be considered a possession. Quashing the judgment after it had become final therefore constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possession.     There being no public interest defence justifying that interference, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   The Court awarded Mrs Josan EUR 16,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lupacescu and Others v. Moldova (nos. 3417/02, 5994/02, 28365/02, 5742/03, 8693/03, 13681/03, 31976/03 and 32759/03) The applicants are eight Moldovan nationals. They all complained about the lengthy failure to enforce various judgments awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds.   The applicants all relied on Article   6 §   1 (access to court) 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 judgments in question were not enforced for 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 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and   awarded the applicants a total of EUR 2,188.64 for pecuniary damage, EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English).   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Zámečníková and Zámečník v. the Czech Republic (no. 16226/04) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 8,400   For costs and expenses: EUR 400     ***   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] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights.