CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC05FF814 { width:134.8pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE4FC1787 { width:135.47pt; display:inline-block } .s35BBB2FC { width:189.52pt; display:inline-block } .sC1D9546B { width:128.14pt; display:inline-block } .s99E65C4C { width:276.2pt; display:inline-block } .s99C6B9D9 { width:70.14pt; display:inline-block } .s55C281ED { width:276.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC0F6D4 { width:22.13pt; display:inline-block } .sC401B41E { width:77.45pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s17F3E669 { width:28.13pt; display:inline-block } .sD8FFFBD { width:51.47pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sB0C4FED { width:106.16pt; display:inline-block } .sD643EF7C { width:86.82pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s729841D5 { width:145.5pt; 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 } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; 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   177 28.3.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and four length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Rázlová v. the Czech Republic (application no. 20252/03) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Regina Rázlová, is a Czech national who was born in 1947 and lives in Stránčice (Czech Republic). She was arrested on 2 June 1998 on a charge of misusing information in business relations. The proceedings against her are still pending before the Czech investigating bodies.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant contested the length of the criminal proceedings against her.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings in question had so far lasted more than seven years and nine months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mrs Rázlová 3,500   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gaultier v. France (no. 41522/98)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Guy Gaultier, is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives in Sarreguemines (France).   In April 1993, in the context of criminal proceedings brought against him following an attack on one of his neighbours, a discharge order was issued in respect of the applicant on account of his psychiatric state. In a decision of 4 June 1993, the Prefect of Pas-de-Calais ordered that the applicant be hospitalised. Initially placed in a specialised hospital (CHS) in Arras, the applicant was subsequently transferred to the Sarreguemines CHS on two occasions.   During his hospitalisation, the applicant submitted several applications for immediate release. His first application to the Sarreguemines tribunal de grande instance , dated 29 August 1996, was dismissed on 8 July 1997. On 12 November 1997 he made a further application for immediate release to the Arras tribunal de grande instance , which dismissed it on 3   March 1998.   Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to freedom and security), the applicant alleged that his requests for immediate release from internment had not been decided speedily.   The Court noted that the courts dealing with the applications took ten months and four months respectively to rule on the applicant’s requests for immediate release. It considered that the delays complained of by the applicant were excessive and could not reasonably be regarded as inextricably linked to the complexity of the medical issues involved, but instead to a failure by the relevant courts to act expeditiously, especially since, when acting in summary proceedings, courts were under an obligation to rule as a matter of urgency, particularly where an individual’s freedom was at stake.   Consequently, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   4 and awarded Mr   Gaultier EUR 3,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Csáky v. Hungary (no. 32768/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Zsigmond Gyula Csáky, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Budapest.   On 27 February 2002 the applicant was arrested and charged with extortion. In March 2002 Pest Central District Court ordered his pre-trial detention. The investigation against him was closed on 24 September 2003.   From 17 October 2003 onwards, he was detained in a Forensic Institute for Psychiatric Observation and Treatment (an IMEI), as he had been diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia. In December 2003 he was charged being an accomplice to kidnapping and of committing actual bodily harm. He was released from the IMEI on 19 October 2004.   All his requests for release were rejected mainly on the grounds that he might abscond, given the seriousness of the charges against him. The risk of collusion was also referred to.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court found that after the investigation was closed, the risk of collusion was no longer arguable. As to the risk of the applicant’s absconding, the Court found that the domestic courts should have made it’s assessment in the light of the applicant’s serious psychiatric condition and should have considered his placement in a civilian institution, all the more so since, before his committal to the IMEI, he had already been detained for more than one-and-a-half years. Instead, the courts limited themselves to reiterating that, given the seriousness of the charges against him, there was a risk that the applicant would abscond. The Court found that this was implausible in the circumstances. It was therefore not persuaded that the applicant’s detention, in particular after 17 October 2003, was justified.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Bendžius v. Lithuania (no. 67506/01)   Struck out The applicant, Vytautas Bendžius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1970. When he lodged his application with the Court he was detained at Pravieniškė Prison in Lithuania.   The applicant complained that he had been incited to commit an offence which had been organised by the authorities. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Since he last contacted the Court on 14 February 2004 and had not replied to any further correspondence, the Court considered that the applicant had lost interest in pursuing the application and, finding no reasons concerning the respect for human rights to warrant further examination, struck out the case. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Jaworski v. Poland (no. 25715/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kubicz v. Poland (no. 16535/02)   Both applicants are Polish nationals who live in Poland. Piotr Jaworski, was born in 1977 and lives in Zielona Góra and Andrzej Kubicz, was born in 1959 and lives in Chrzanów.   In December 1999 Mr Jaworski was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and detained on remand by Zielona Góra District Court. In February 2001 he was charged with homicide and is currently in detention pending trial. He has made several unsuccessful applications for release and has appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions extending his detention.   In March 2001 Mr Kubicz was detained on remand, suspected of armed robbery. In May 2001 he was indicted and in March 2003 Katowice Regional Court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. His pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions and his appeals for release were rejected.   The applicants in both cases complained in particular about the length of their pre-trial detention. They relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court observed that the judicial authorities repeatedly relied on three principal grounds to justify the applicants’ continued detention, namely, the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, the serious nature of that offence and the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings.   The Court held that although strong suspicion against the applicants of having committed the serious offences could have initially warranted their detention, with the passage of time, they inevitably became less relevant. It also stressed that when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities were obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring their appearance at trial. The Court noted however that in both cases the authorities did not once envisage the possibility of imposing on the applicants other measures – such as bail or police supervision – expressly foreseen by Polish law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. The Court concluded that the grounds given for the applicants’ pre-trial detention were not “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify holding them in custody for the periods in question, that is, approximately two years in the case of Kubicz and over six years in Jaworski .   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in both cases and awarded Mr Jaworski EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and Mr Kubicz EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Tomczyk Prokopyszyn v. Poland (no. 64283/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Zbigniew Tomszyk Prokopyszyn, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Strzelce Krajeńskie (Poland).   On 3 March 2000 Radomsko District Court remanded the applicant in custody on a burglary charge.   He was detained at the Piotrków Trybunalski Detention Centre until the end of the proceedings against him. He was later convicted of handling stolen goods and sentenced to 15   months’ imprisonment.   While he was in detention he sent numerous letters to the European Court of Human Rights, most of which appeared to have been opened and read by the domestic authorities.   The applicant complained, in particular, that his correspondence had been interfered with. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court noted that Polish law required that the inspection of a detainee’s correspondence take place in his presence and that that rule had not been applied in the applicant’s case. It therefore followed that the opening of the letters was not “in accordance with the law”.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 2 (death) Perk and Others v. Turkey (no. 50739/99)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) The applicants, Gezer Perk, Celal Korkulu and Veysel Akpınar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1940, 1965 and 1966 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the relatives of Fuat Perk, Ayten Korkulu and Meral Akpınar, all three of whom died in February 1996 during a police operation against the DHKP-C (Revolutionary Party of the Liberation of the People Front, an extreme-left wing armed movement).   On 9 February 1996, acting on a tip-off from a member of the DHKP-C, an operation involving 15 police officers was conducted in a building located in Bahçelievler, Istanbul, against terrorists preparing to carry out an attack. The applicants’ relatives, who were in the flat which was stormed by the police, were killed during the operation; according to the report prepared at the end of the operation, the three terrorists had been found dead, sheltering in a room with revolvers in their hands.   On the same day, witness statements were taken and preliminary post-mortems were conducted. A criminal investigation was opened. It emerged from the autopsies carried out a few days later that Fuat Perk’s body had been hit by seven bullets, that of Meral Akpınar by 21 bullets and that of Ayten Korkulu by 13 bullets. According to the expert report, those shots were fired from a distance. It was decided to carry out ballistic tests to ascertain the firing distance, but those tests did not make it possible to establish the exact distance from which the shots had been fired.   The principal public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings, among other things on a charge of murder, against the 15 police officers who had taken part in the operation, and the applicants joined those proceedings as an intervening civil party. On 29 December 1997 Bakırköy Assize Court acquitted the defendants, finding, among other things, that they had acted in legitimate self-defence. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   The applicants alleged that their relatives had been killed during a police operation on account of an excessive use of lethal force. They relied on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   With regard to the deaths of the individuals concerned, the Court noted in particular that the Turkish authorities had been dealing with dangerous suspects who were planning to commit a terrorist attack; the situation was thus an urgent one, and the authorities had had to act quickly. At the same time, the use of force was the direct result of the suspects’ violent reaction when the storming of the flat began. With regard to the proportionality of the force used, the Court accepted that the intransigence of the suspects, who were shouting slogans and had refused to obey the order to open the door, had persuaded the police officers that they intended to open fire; knowing that the suspects were armed and believing that they planned to carry out a terrorist attack, the police officers could reasonably have considered that it was necessary to attempt to enter the flat and to disarm and arrest the suspects. Equally, they could reasonably have considered it necessary, once in the flat, to continue to shoot until the suspects were no longer able to return fire.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the use of lethal force, however regrettable, had not exceeded what was “absolutely necessary” “in defence of any person from unlawful violence” and, in particular, “to effect a lawful arrest”. In addition, it had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt that unnecessarily excessive force had been used in this instance. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 with regard to the death of the applicants’ relatives.   With regard to the investigation into the event, the Court noted that numerous investigative measures had been conducted in this case. However, the preparation of a reliable sketch of the premises by independent experts and/or a scene-of-crime reconstruction would have enabled the courts to reconstruct the events more exactly and to assess the specific threat to which the police officers were exposed. In addition, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the Assize Court had not examined with sufficient care the circumstances preceding the police assault and had not therefore considered it necessary to order an analysis of whether it would have been possible to use neutralising techniques, especially tear gas bullets, in the premises in question. In those circumstances, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 with regard to the nature of the investigation carried out in the case.   The Court also considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint separately under Article 6. As the applicants had not submitted any claim in respect of just satisfaction, the Court held that they should not be awarded any compensation. (The judgment is available only in French.) Melnyk v. Ukraine (no. 23436/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Galyna Ivanivna Melnyk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1954 and lives in the village of Bilashky (Ukraine).   In 2001 proceedings instituted by the applicant with regard to a labour dispute before Staromiskiy Local Court of Vinnitsa were discontinued on the ground that she had failed to appear before the court. Her appeal against that judgment was rejected on 27 February 2002.   On 29 April 2002 her request for a cassation appeal was rejected. The court stated that, under Article 321 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which had entered into force on 4   April   2002, the time-limit for lodging an appeal in cassation was one month, and that the applicant had exceeded that time-limit by only lodging her appeal on 26   April 2002. No reference was made in the decision to the actual deadline which had not been complied with. The judgment was upheld in the Supreme Court.   The applicant complained that she was denied access to the Court of Cassation. She relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   The Court noted that Staromisky Local Court rejected the applicant’s request as having been lodged out of time on the basis of the new law of 4   April   2002. That suggested that the provisions that law were applied retroactively, requiring the applicant to have lodged a cassation appeal within a month of the court of appeal decision (i.e. on 27 March 2002) even before the Amendment Law had come into force. The Court doubted whether, in those circumstances, the decision of the first instance court on 29 April 2002, could be considered foreseeable under the relevant domestic legislation.   The Court finally noted that the essence of the procedural changes in the applicant’s case was to speed up civil proceedings and, accordingly, to reduce their overall length. The Court however found that, despite their clearly legitimate aim, the refusal of the applicant’s cassation appeal was not proportionate to the purpose of those procedural changes.   It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine (no. 13716/02) No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Anatoliy Yosypovych Sukhovetskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Agronomichne (Ukraine).   In January 2002 the Electoral Commission of Constituency No. 11 refused to register the applicant as a candidate for the parliamentary elections due to his failure to pay an electoral deposit of UAH 1,041 (equivalent to 218,10 euros at the time). The applicant claimed he was unable to meet that requirement, his annual income being approximately UAH 960 (EUR 201,13). The judgment was upheld in the Supreme Court.   The applicant complained that he had been disenfranchised and discriminated against. He relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court noted that the electoral law of a number of European States provided for measures to discourage frivolous candidates from standing. It also noted that a State’s participation in the campaign costs of the registered candidates, aimed at promoting equality among the contestants, was a factor which could not be overlooked. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the law in question pursued the legitimate aim of guaranteeing the right to effective, streamlined representation by enhancing the responsibility of those standing for election and confining elections to serious candidates, whilst avoiding the unreasonable outlay of public funds.   The Court further noted that, among European jurisdictions, the amount of the deposit in Ukrainian law was one of the lowest. It concluded, that the fee required of the applicant could not be considered to have been excessive or such as to constitute an insurmountable administrative or financial barrier for a determined candidate wishing to take part in elections.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and that there was no need to make a separate examination of the applicant’s claim under Article 14. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Shcherbaky v. Ukraine (no. 31095/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants are Leonid Shcherbaky and his wife Lidiya Shcherbak who were born in 1953 and 1962, respectively, and live in Kharkiv (Ukraine).   The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of judgments awarding them compensation for unpaid salary arrears. The judgments were ultimately enforced after the case before the European Court of Human Rights had been communicated to the Ukrainian Government.   They relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for four years and 11 months, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. It therefore held, unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Le Bechennec v. France (no. 28738/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,500   For costs and expenses: EUR 1,500   Raffi v. France (no. 11760/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,500   For costs and expenses: EUR 500   Varga v. Hungary (no. 14338/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 6,000   For costs and expenses: EUR 1,000   In the following case, the applicant also alleges that he had no effective remedy in respect of those complaints, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Koss v. Poland (no. 52495/99)   No violation of Article 13 The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR   7,000     ***   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.