CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 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 } .sA5F61110 { width:266.23pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sD1417FAC { width:214.89pt; display:inline-block } .sBC4BC80B { width:220.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA8DAFCE7 { width:132.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s3895766 { width:39.49pt; display:inline-block } .sC3F64F3D { width:80.14pt; display:inline-block } .s14A0F153 { width:62.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B419512 { width:34.11pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s5328D82E { width:91.44pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s354EDC95 { width:152.8pt; display:inline-block } .s135228D6 { width:80.81pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   163 23.3.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and three length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.       Violation of Article 8 (private life)   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13 Albanese v. Italy (no. 77924/01) Vitiello v. Italy (no. 77962/01)     No violation of Article 8 (correspondence)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   Violation of Article 8 (private life)   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Campagnano v. Italy (no. 77955/01)   Violation of Article 13   The applicants in these three cases are all Italian nationals who live in Benevento (Italy). Alfredo Albanese and Emilia Campagnano were born in 1941 and 1933 respectively, while Bernardo and Giuseppe Vitiello were both born in 1954. Between November 1996 and June 1998 the applicants and their companies were declared bankrupt by Benevento District Court.   The applicants alleged that, following the declaration of bankruptcy, they had been deprived of their possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that correspondence sent to them had been given to the receiver contrary to Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and that they had been unable to leave their place of residence contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). In addition, relying on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained of the lack of an effective remedy under Italian law by which to complain of the ineligibilities incurred as a result of being made bankrupt. Lastly, they submitted that the loss of their right to vote following their bankruptcy had infringed Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).   The applicants further complained under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that their right to respect for their private life had been infringed because the entry of their names in the bankruptcy register had prevented them from carrying out professional or commercial activities. They also complained of the fact that they could not apply for rehabilitation, which would put an end to the ineligibilities affecting their personal rights, for five years after completion of the bankruptcy proceedings.   In the Albanese and Vitiello cases, the Court declared the applications admissible with regard to the complaints under Article 8 concerning the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, and to the complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13, and declared the remainder of the applications inadmissible. In the Campagnano case, it declared the application admissible as to the complaints under Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, and found the remainder of the application inadmissible.   As to the interference with the applicants’ voting rights, the European Court of Human Rights considered that the measure, which was provided for by Article 2 of Presidential Decree No.   223 of 20 March 1967, served no purpose other than to belittle persons who had been made bankrupt, reprimanding them simply for having been declared insolvent irrespective of whether they had committed an offence. The interference did not therefore pursue a legitimate aim. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that, far from being a privilege, voting was a right protected by the Convention. It therefore held unanimously in all three cases that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court further considered that, given that the names of bankrupts were entered automatically in the bankruptcy register and that the application of the ineligibilities in question was not the subject of any assessment or judicial review, and in view of the length of time before rehabilitation could be obtained, the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life provided for by section 50 of the Bankruptcy Act was contrary to the Convention. The Court therefore held unanimously in all three cases that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Finally, the Court held unanimously in all three cases that there had been a violation of Article 13.   In the Campagnano case, the Court took the view that the length of the bankruptcy proceedings (over three years and nine months) had not upset the balance that had to be struck between the general interest in securing the payment of the bankrupt’s creditors and the applicant’s personal interest in securing respect for her correspondence, her property and her freedom of movement. The Court also took account of the fact that there was no evidence of any delay on the part of the judicial authorities in dealing with the case. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 as to the applicant’s right to respect for her correspondence; neither had there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   The Court considered that the findings of violations constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and awarded them 2,000 euros (EUR) each for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Konovalov v. Russia (no. 63501/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Vladimir Nikolayevich Konovalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Slavyansk-na-Kubani (Russia).   On 6 April 1998 and 19 April 2000 the Slavyansk Town Court ordered the Slavyansk Town Council to pay the applicant a certain amount of State housing aid to buy a property. The judgments made payment conditional on the availability of money from the federal budget of the Russian Federation and on prior payments being made to those placed on the waiting list before the applicant. The judgments were never enforced.   The applicant complained about the lengthy failure to enforce final judgments awarding him compensation. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (access to court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   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. Nor should it, in such a case, be possible to avoid execution of the claim by providing in a judgment, without any statutory basis, that the payment of an award is conditional on the availability of money from the State treasury and the prior payment to those before the claimant on a waiting list. The Court considered that the conditions for payment laid down in the judgments did not relieve the State of its obligation to pay the sums awarded within a reasonable time. It noted, in particular, that the judgment of 6 April 1998 had not been enforced for approximately two and a half years. The Court found that by failing for such a substantial period of time to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judgment, the Russian authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of their useful effect. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court also found that the lengthy failure to enforce that judgment constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court awarded Mr Konovalov EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 20 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Anyığ and Others v. Turkey (no. 51176/99)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The eight applicants, Nurettin Anyığ, Mehmet Mevsül Kılınç, Gülten Demir, Melek İlhan, Gazi Çelik, Fesih Sakçak, Maşallah Dal and Sever Altın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1965, 1976, 1976, 1980, 1958, 1975, 1971 and 1956 respectively. At the material time, Mr Anyığ lived in Antalya, Mr Kılınç in Urfa, Mrs Demir in Mersin, Mrs İlhan in Muş, Mr Çelik and Mr Altın in İzmir, Mr Sakçak in Diyarbakır and Mrs Dal in Adana.   Between 17 June and 3 July 1996 the applicants were all arrested by the security forces and taken into police custody on suspicion of belonging to the PKK. They were subsequently placed in detention pending trial and criminal proceedings were instituted against them for membership of an illegal armed organisation.   On 3 March 1998 İzmir State Security Court sentenced Mr Anyığ to 16 years and ten days’ imprisonment, Mr Kılınç to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment, Mrs Demir to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and Mrs İlhan to two years and six months’ imprisonment. On 12 June 1997 the court further sentenced Mr Çelik to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and imposed sentences of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment on Mr Sakçak, Mr Altın and Mrs Dal.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), the applicants complained about the length of their detention in police custody. In addition, relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complained that the proceedings against them had been unfair.   The Court declared the application admissible with regard to the length of the applicants’ detention in police custody and inadmissible with regard to the fairness of the proceedings.   The Court noted that the periods of detention in police custody had been six days in the case of Mr Anyığ, Mr Kılınç, Mrs Demir and Mrs İlhan, ten days in the case of Mr Altın and 11 days in the case of Mr Çelik, Mr Sakçak and Mrs Dal. The Court could not accept that it had been necessary to detain the applicants for so long before they were brought before a judge. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded made the following awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,000 each to Mr Anyığ, Mr Kılınç, Mrs Demir and Mrs İlhan, EUR 3,000 to Mr Altın and EUR   3,500 each to Mr Çelik, Mr Sakçak and Mrs Dal. It also awarded the applicants EUR   1,500 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   Krivokuća v. Croatia (no. 38770/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Milan Krivokuća, is a Croatian national who was born in 1929 and lives in Maastricht (the Netherlands).   The applicant brought proceedings for damages against the State which were stayed on 30 April 2002 under the 1996 Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act. He complained that the enactment of the amendment violated his right of access to a court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to court).   Considering that, following a legislative amendment, the Croatian courts had not determined the applicants’ civil claims for almost four years and four months, the Court   held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kur v. Turkey (no. 43389/98) Ülker and Others v. Turkey (no. 64438/01) The applicants in these two cases are seven Turkish nationals who live in Ankara, with the exception of Mr Kur, who lives in İzmir (Turkey).   The applicants were awarded damages by the Turkish courts, in the form of additional compensation for expropriation in the case of Ülker and Others and, in the Kur case, compensation for deprivation of liberty in connection with criminal proceedings which resulted in an acquittal.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained in particular about the delays in paying them the amounts in question. In Ülker and Others , the applicants also relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the case of Ülker and Others , it found that it was not necessary to rule on the complaint under Article 14. The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. Under the head of pecuniary damage, it awarded EUR 25,000 jointly to the applicants in Ülker and Others and EUR 1,260 to Mr Kur. It also awarded Mr Kur EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Tokay and Ulus v. Turkey (no. 48060/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tacettin Tokay and Diyaeddin Ulus are Turkish nationals who were born in 1947 and 1960 respectively and live in İzmir.   On 21 December 1995 the applicants were sentenced by İzmir State Security Court to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for lending assistance to the PKK. They appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   The applicants complained in particular that they had not had a fair trial, contrary to Article 6 (right to a fair trial), owing in particular to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which had convicted them.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to the complaint concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court. As to the other complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to persons subject to its jurisdiction. It therefore considered that that it was not necessary to examine those complaints.   With regard to the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously that the present judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants. It reiterated that, where it found that applicants had 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 in principle for them to be retried at an early date by a court satisfying those requirements. The Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR1,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 660 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Lerios v. Cyprus (application no. 68448/01)   Violation of Article 13 The Court awarded:   For costs and expenses: EUR 2,500   Siebert v. Germany (no. 59008/00)   Friendly settlement For pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses: EUR 9,000     Krisper v. Slovenia (no. 47825/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,000   ***   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 ).   Press contacts 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)     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.