CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 avril 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 } .s2474A0F5 { width:149.49pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s96FECE0 { width:14.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4E98F679 { width:87.49pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .s1CDC23B7 { width:231.58pt; display:inline-block } .s9743D5FD { width:49.46pt; display:inline-block } .sC1113DD3 { width:56.76pt; display:inline-block } .s37F91A2F { width:153.46pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s65FB1199 { width:16.75pt; display:inline-block } .sC6C0EBF2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA2379495 { width:303.05pt; display:inline-block } .s5B1DFD25 { width:85.15pt; display:inline-block } .sF985D369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:19pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s141C896D { width:64.08pt; display:inline-block } .sF3A8B8AD { width:7.8pt; display:inline-block } .sEF185096 { width:29.59pt; display:inline-block } .s40269D5B { width:34.93pt; display:inline-block } .sA3BBDED1 { width:138.29pt; display:inline-block } .s5699BFDA { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:11.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFFFDE67C { width:86.97pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   194 4.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Poland, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Malik v. Poland (no. 57477/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Andrzej Malik, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Dąbrowa Górnicza (Poland).   On 15 October 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed fraud. He was later remanded in custody. In March 1999 he was indicted on several charges of fraud and forgery. In August 1999 he was tried before Tarnowskie Góry District Court and in March 2000 he was sentenced to four years’ and six months’ imprisonment.   Despite his numerous appeals for release, the applicant’s detention was prolonged several times. The authorities initially relied on the serious nature of the charges and the strong evidence against him. When he later requested to be released on account of his ill-health, they also held that there were no special circumstances for releasing him on that account.   The applicant complained that his detention had been in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that throughout the 17 months which the applicant spent in detention, no consideration was given to the possibility of imposing on him other preventive measures, such as bail or police supervision. It also noted that the courts did not point to any factor indicating that there was a risk of the applicant colluding, absconding or otherwise evading justice.   The Court was, therefore, not satisfied that the reasons given to justify the applicant’s detention were relevant and sufficient and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in that the applicant’s right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial was not respected. It awarded Mr Malik EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 8 Sarı and Çolak v. Turkey (nos. 42596/98 and 42603/98)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Mustafa Sarı and Sibel Çolak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1977 respectively. At the material time they lived in Ankara.   On 17 November 1997 they were arrested and taken into police custody in the course of an operation against an illegal organisation, THKP/C Dev Yol – Devrim Hareketi (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front – Revolutionary Way – Revolutionary Movement). On 24   November 1997, at the end of their period in police custody, Ms Çolak was released, but Mr Sarı was remanded in custody   On 22 April 1999 Ankara State Security Court found them guilty of membership of an armed gang and sentenced them to three years and nine months' imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the unlawfulness and the length of their detention in police custody. They also complained under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that they had been denied all contact with their family during their detention.   The Court noted that the applicants had been held in police custody for seven days. It could not accept that it had been necessary to detain them for that length of time before bringing them before a judge. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 1 (c).   The Court observed that it could be extremely important for a person who has been arrested to be able to communicate with his or her family promptly. The unexplained disappearance of a member of the family, even for a short period, could cause deep anxiety. In the case before the Court the applicants had been held incommunicado for more than seven days with all the anxiety which that had entailed both for them and their families. In addition, the lack of contact with their families meant that they had been prevented from exercising their rights under domestic law. Since there was no legislation at the material time governing the right of people in police custody to contact their families or others, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case incommunicado detention for more than seven days was contrary to the Convention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also made a joint award of EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kobtsev v. Ukraine (no. 7324/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Oleksandr Mykolayovych Kobtsev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Kyiv.   On 30 October 1998 he was arrested and charged with the unlawful possession of ammunition and remanded in custody. He was committed to trial in February 1999. The proceedings were finally terminated on 25 December 2001.   He complained in particular about the length of the proceedings against him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted nearly three years and two months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Sergey Vasilyevich Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 32478/02) The applicant, Sergey Vasilyevich Shevchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine).   On 3 October 2000 the applicant’s son, Andrey Shevchenko, (a First Lieutenant in the Ukrainian Air Force) was found dead at his post with two gunshot wounds to his head. A criminal investigation was opened the same day and an investigator from the Military Prosecutor’s Office inspected the scene and a report was drawn up by the commanding officer of the A-2491 Air Unit. A suicide letter was found during a search of Andrey Shevchenko’s flat.   On 4 October 2000 Major General O. read out several extracts from the suicide letter to the Unit and stated, among other things that Andrey Shevchenko had long prepared himself to die at his own hand and was deeply influenced to that end by his reading of occult philosophy written by Carlos Castaneda. Typed copies of the letter were then handed out to the members of the Unit and a copy was given to the applicant. His request for a photocopy of the original was refused.   A number of Andrey Shevchenko’s close friends and his moral welfare officer stated that they did not consider him at risk of committing suicide and did not spot any peculiarities in his conduct on the day of the incident. Seventy-five witness testimonies were taken in total.   The applicant was questioned by an officer who remarked that he was almost completely sure that Andrey Shevchenko’s death had been suicide and refused to add to the protocol the applicant’s comments about the disappearance of USD 15,000 from his son’s flat. In October 2000 the applicant was refused victim status in the criminal proceedings on the ground that the evidence strongly suggested that his son had committed suicide. He appealed unsuccessfully.   On 30 December 2000 the preliminary investigation was closed and a final report concluded that the applicant’s son had committed suicide. The report made references to, among other things, a post-mortem psychological inquiry in which the possibility of suicide was not excluded, a forensic report which concluded that the applicant could have shot himself twice, and five witness testimonies. The applicant appealed and the decision was quashed. However, another report was drawn up in April 2002 which generally repeated the same findings. The investigator concluded that Andrey Shevchenko had committed suicide after reading the works of Carlos Castaneda and closed the case. The applicant who was originally refused a copy of the report on the ground that he was neither the defendant nor the victim was sent a copy in December 2002.   The applicant complained in particular that the investigation into his son’s death had not been independent, adequate or effective. He relied on Articles 2 (right to life) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court did not accept the Government’s argument that there was a clear cut case of suicide and that the authorities were merely obliged to establish the circumstances in which it took place.   The Court found that the investigation revealed certain important inconsistencies and deficiencies which were not properly accounted for. The Court noted that the command of Andrey Shevchenko’s Unit pressed the suicide theory and that the inquiry officer did not start to question witnesses regarding other possible reasons for his death until a week after the event. The most notable gap in the investigation was the failure to take into account testimonies of the applicant, the moral welfare officer and Andrey Shevchenko’s friends, none of whom considered the applicant’s son to have been a suicide risk. Moreover, there had been no attempt to explain the fact that the first wound was inflicted to the left side of the face whereas Andrey Shevchenko was right-handed, or to account for the fact that two extra cartridges were missing from the handgun.   The Court observed that, although the initial inquiry into the death was carried out promptly, it did not satisfy the minimum requirement of independence since the investigating body - the commanding officer of the Unit - represented the authority involved. The Court also observed that no reconstruction of events was attempted even though information from such an exercise could have been crucial. In addition, it noted that no forensic examination of the hands of the deceased was conducted for possible gunshot residue.   The Court considered the refusal to grant the applicant victim status, thereby denying him the possibility of intervening during the course of the investigation, was contrary to the usual practice under national law and was unacceptable.   The Court found that the investigation did not ensure sufficient public accountability or scrutiny and did not safeguard the interests of the next-of-kin. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 due to the failure to conduct an effective an independent investigation. It also held that was no separate issue under Article 6 § 1. The applicant was awarded EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (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.     Violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bodur and Others v. Turkey (no. 42911/98) Karaaslan v. Turkey (no. 72970/01) The applicants, who are Turkish nationals, complained under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) about delays in the payment of compensation awarded to them for the expropriation of their property.   In both cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the findings of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. In the case of Bodur and Others it awarded the applicants EUR 127,342 for pecuniary damage. In the case of Karaaslan it awarded the applicant EUR 536 for pecuniary damage and EUR 335 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Güzel v. Turkey (No. 1) (no. 54479/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Hasan Celal Güzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Ankara. He is a former minister and member of parliament and at the material time was Chairman of the Rebirth Party ( Yeniden Doğuş Partisi ).   He was charged with inciting hatred and hostility through discrimination on grounds of religious affiliation in a speech at a conference in 1997. On 23   February 1997 the Ankara State Security Court found him guilty of the offences and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and the payment of a fine.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of procedural unfairness, in particular on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the trial court.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court. It reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction, so that it was unnecessary to examine the other complaints.   The Court considered that the judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the applicant’s alleged non-pecuniary damage. It reiterated that where it had found that an applicant had been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be a trial de novo by a court that fulfilled those criteria. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine (no. 17899/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Pomazanyy and Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 9719/02)   The applicants complained in particular about the authorities’ lengthy failure to fully execute judgments awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court observed that it was not open to a State authority or State-owned enterprise to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. It 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 in both cases.   The Court held in both cases that the Government was to pay the applicant the judgments debts still owed to them. It also awarded for non pecuniary damage EUR 2,000 to the applicant in the case of Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine , and EUR 465 to each of the applicants in the case of Pomazanyy and Shevchenko v. Ukraine . (The judgments are available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained about the excessive length of the proceedings against them and the lack of an effective remedy. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). In Maršálek v. the Czech Republic the Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Maršálek v. the Czech Republic (application no 8153/04)   Violation of Article 13 Bitton c. France (n o 2) (n o 41828/02)     In the following cases, all the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Pachman and Mates v. the Czech Republic (no. 14881/02)     Heřmanský v. the Czech Republic (no. 20551/02)     Vojáčková v. the Czech Republic (no. 15741/02)     Demir v. France (no. 3041/02)     Magyar v. Hungary (No. 2) (no. 442/03)         ***   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.