CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 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 } .sBDB6FCE6 { width:157.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF290579F { width:234.81pt; display:inline-block } .sE0CBB96D { width:93.48pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s73BC89DA { width:30.79pt; display:inline-block } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .s319D81E7 { width:179.47pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s82BFB0F1 { width:68.82pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sF743E20D { width:27.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2AD7A6D2 { width:93.47pt; display:inline-block } .s5C60AA6A { width:53.49pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA423A387 { width:257.52pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   229 20.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Belgium, , Italy, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” 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 [2] and 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 6 §§ 1 (fairness) and 3 (a) and (b) I.H. v. Austria (application no 42780/98)   The applicants, I.H., Me.H., R.H. and Mu.H., are Austrian nationals of Turkish origin born in 1978, 1959, 1959 and 1961 respectively, and live in Vorarlberg (Austria).   On 23 May 1997 the applicants – I.H, his parents and uncle – were convicted of raping F.D (who had been engaged to I.H. according to the terms of an arranged marriage) after she told I.H. that she no longer felt bound to marry him.   The applicants appealed. They claimed that their conviction had gone beyond the terms of the indictment as they had been convicted of rape under section 201 § 1 of the Penal Code, while the bill of indictment had charged them with rape under section 201 § 2, with the result that the maximum penalty imposable was doubled. Their appeal was rejected.   The applicants complained that the re-qualification of the rape offence by the trial court, without prior change to the indictment, prevented them from exercising their defence rights properly. They relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights recalled that in order that the right to defence be exercised in an effective manner, the defence must have at its disposal full, detailed information concerning the charges made, including the legal characterisation that the court might adopt in the matter. That information must either be given before the trial in the bill of indictment or at least in the course of the trial by other means such as formal or implicit extension of the charges. The Court considered that the applicants had been hindered in the effective exercise of their rights of defence and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It held by four votes to three that the applicants be awarded 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Carta v. Italy (no. 4548/02)   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) The applicant, Salvatore Carta, is an Italian national who was born in 1958. He is currently in Nuoro Prison (Italy).   In 1996 evidence was taken from X on several occasions in connection with an investigation into the abduction of a person who had been held in a cave for more than five months. The victim had been found wearing boots of exceptional quality, which he claimed to have received from his captors and which in fact came from a company owned by X. Having initially given evidence as a witness, X was subsequently questioned as an accused. He stated, among other things, to the police that he had left the boots with the applicant, who had a livestock farm not far from the site where the person had been held.   Criminal proceedings were instituted against X and the applicant for abduction, unlawful entry and carrying a prohibited weapon. X asserted his right to remain silent. The court accordingly decided to use the statements taken from X during the investigation in order to determine the merits of the charges against the applicant.   On 9 April 1999 the Nuoro District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 29 years’ imprisonment but acquitted X for lack of evidence. It found that the applicant had acted as a “gatekeeper” during the victim’s detention. The applicant appealed, arguing among other things that he had not had the opportunity to examine X and that he disputed the latter’s statements. The Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to 24 years’ imprisonment. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed on 10 May 2001.   The applicant alleged that the proceedings against him had not been fair, since he had not had the opportunity to examine or have examined a witness against him. He relied on Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair hearing).   The Court observed that Italian law at the material time had allowed the use, in the determination of a defendant’s guilt, of statements made before the trial by other defendants who had subsequently availed themselves of the right to remain silent.   In the applicant’s case the Court noted that he had not had the opportunity to put questions to X at any stage of the proceedings. However, the statements by that witness had not been the sole piece of evidence on which the judges had convicted the applicant and had not been decisive. X’s statements, which the applicant had, moreover, had the opportunity to challenge, had corroborated the other evidence produced against him at a trial conducted in public in accordance with the adversarial principle. In those circumstances the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6. (The judgment exists only in French.)         Başlık and Others v. Turkey (no. 35073/97)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicants, Aydın Başlık, Esral Karagöz, Yaşathak Aslan, Fercan Kaya and Nizamettin Doğan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960, 1961, 1952, 1960 and 1958 respectively. At the time of their application they were in Sağmalcılar Prison (Istanbul).   Mr Karagöz was arrested on 26 April 1991, Mr Aslan on 29 April and Mr Başlık, Mr Kaya and Mr Doğan on 30 April 1991, on suspicion of being involved in an armed robbery. On 19 February 1999 they were sentenced to life imprisonment for being members of an illegal organisation, Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). On 22 February 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against them.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted almost nine years for two levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it found that such a period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As the applicants had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that no award should be made to them under Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment exists only in French.)   Berk v. Turkey (no. 41973/98)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Misbah Berk and his children Edip, Ayşe and Ferhat, are Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Misbah and Edip Berk were born in 1944 and 1965 respectively.   On 22 October 1997 Misbah and Edip Berk were arrested and taken into police custody in connection with an investigation into the PKK. On 30 October 1997 they were placed in pre-trial detention and proceedings were brought against them for assisting an armed gang. They were released on 19 March 1998.   On 19 November 1998 Diyarbakır State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them each to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.   The applicants complained of the excessive time they had spent in police custody and of the lack of a remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. They relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement under which Misbah and Edip Berk are to receive EUR 2,500 each.   (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.   De Sciscio v. Italy (no. 176/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Antonio de Sciscio is an Italian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Benevento (Italy).   He owned a plot of land measuring almost 3,478 square metres in Benevento. The authorities took possession of the land with a view to expropriating it and started building work on it. Since no formal expropriation order had been made and no compensation awarded, the applicant brought an action for damages for the unlawful occupation of his land.   The applicant alleged that the occupation of his land had infringed his right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   The Court considered that the applicant’s loss of all ability to dispose of the land, coupled with the lack of a remedy, amounted to a de facto expropriation that was incompatible with his 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 considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved it. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Çelik and Others v. Turkey (no. 56835/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) İbrahim Yayan v. Turkey (no. 57965/00) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Uzun v. Turkey (no. 48544/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) In these three Turkish cases the applicants were charged with being members of illegal organisations and were convicted by a State security court. In the case of Çelik and Others the four applicants were given prison sentences of between 12 and 15 years for belonging to the DHP (Revolutionary People’s Party). Mr Yayan received penalties including a prison sentence of 12 years and six months for being a member of the THKP-C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party) and Ms Uzun was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of the illegal armed organisation Dev-Sol ( Devrimci Sol – Revolutionary Left).   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that they had not had a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State security court. In the cases of Çelik and Others and İbrahim Yayan the applicants also complained that the proceedings resulting in their conviction had been unfair, and raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously in all three cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 as regards the complaint that the State security court had not been independent and impartial. As regards the other complaints relating to the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court 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. It therefore considered that it was unnecessary to examine those complaints.   In Uzun the Court further noted that the proceedings in issue had lasted almost seven years and six months for two levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it found that such a period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account also.   In the case of Çelik and Others the Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,500   jointly for costs and expenses. In Uzun it awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Kökmen v. Turkey (no. 35768/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Mehmet Kökmen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey).   He complained of delays in the payment of additional compensation for the expropriation of his property, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6. It held that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 14,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of civil and administrative proceedings. In the case of Defalque v. Belgium the applicant made other complaints which the Court declared inadmissible.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Defalque v. Belgium (no. 37330/02)   Milošević v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 15056/02)     ***   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. [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.