CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 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 } .sC2CFC3EF { width:20.09pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sE4F7B1B { width:78.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7BC912F7 { width:95.47pt; display:inline-block } .s5F6275BC { width:131.49pt; display:inline-block } .sCF6AC8FE { width:45.48pt; display:inline-block } .s18F7D39A { width:116.83pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s26D56545 { width:100.8pt; display:inline-block } .s810C97F6 { width:29.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC38A71A9 { width:66.1pt; display:inline-block } .s73F2C9F8 { width:21.86pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   245 27.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 36 Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Basoukos v. Greece (application no. 7544/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ioannis Basoukos is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and is currently in Chalkida Prison (Greece).   In 2005 he was given prison sentences of five years and one year respectively for a drug offence and for assaulting police officers. Both sets of proceedings are still pending before the Greek courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that one of the impugned sets of proceedings had already lasted for more than five years and six months for two levels of jurisdiction, while the other had lasted for over two years and five months for one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length of the proceedings was excessive and did not comply with the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 6,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Horomidis v. Greece (no. 9874/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Constantinos Horomidis is a Greek lawyer who was born in 1926 and lives in Salonika (Greece).   He was a member of the board of a public limited company established to set up a national land register in Greece under a project funded by the European Union (EU). In view of the delays in implementing the project, the EU considered that Greece had failed in its obligations and sought partial reimbursement of the sums it had paid. The members of the board were subsequently prosecuted for breach of loyalty.   The case is currently pending before the Indictment Division of Athens Criminal Court, which will decide whether or not to commit the applicant for trial.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of the proceedings against him.   The Court declared the application admissible only in respect of the length of the proceedings. It noted that the proceedings at issue had already lasted for over four years and five months for the preliminary proceedings alone. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Koleci v. Greece (no. 14309/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Alket Koleci is an Albanian national who is currently in Korydallos Prison (Greece).   In May 2002 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for drug trafficking. The proceedings are pending before Athens Court of Appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained in particular of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court observed that the proceedings in question had already lasted almost five years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the applicant had not submitted any claims for just satisfaction, the Court considered that it was not necessary to make an award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mohd v. Greece (no. 11919/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) The applicant, Raza Ali Mohd, is a Bangladeshi national who was born in 1971 and lives in Athens.   On 4 December 2000 the applicant, who had been arrested the previous day for selling counterfeit CDs, was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. He appealed against the decision but remained in detention. On 11 December 2000 an order was made for his deportation under section 27 (1) of Law no. 1975/1991. Following an appeal by the applicant, the Supreme Administrative Court stayed the deportation order on 9 February 2001.   The applicant, who was released on 17 February 2001, was subsequently acquitted and the deportation order was set aside.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty between 4 and 11 December 2000 and between 9 and 17 February 2001.   The Court noted that section 27 (6) of Law no. 1975/1991 empowered the Minister of Public Order, in the public interest and if the person to be expelled was dangerous or was liable to abscond, to order the person’s continuing detention until he or she could be deported. However, with regard to the applicant’s detention between 4 and 11 December 2000, no decision had been given stating on what basis he should be detained or defining the length and conditions of his detention.   As to the period of detention between 9 and 17 February 2001, the Greek Government had not relied on any specific provision laying down whether – and, if so, under what conditions   – a person in respect of whom a deportation order had been stayed could be detained. It therefore concluded that the Greek legislation did not satisfy the test of “foreseeability” of a “law” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.   Lastly, the Court was mindful of the fact that it had never been claimed that Mr Mohd, who had been charged with selling counterfeit CDs, represented a threat to public order.   In the circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   § 1 (f). The Court made no award pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage, as the applicant had not submitted a claims in that respect. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Sannino v. Italy (no. 30961/03)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) The applicant, Giuseppe Sannino, is an Italian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Casoria (Italy).   In 1992 he was charged with fraudulent bankruptcy and was committed for trial before Naples District Court. During the proceedings, he was represented by several lawyers. Having chosen the first lawyer, he was then represented by a lawyer appointed by the authorities. When the latter was absent, the applicant’s case was handled by other lawyers.   In a judgment of 12 April 2000 Naples District Court sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment. The applicant made a number of unsuccessful appeals against his conviction. In 2002 he lodged an application to be released on probation, which was granted by the Naples court responsible for the execution of sentences.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings leading to his conviction had been unfair. He also submitted that he had not been granted an appeal, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).   The Court noted that the lawyer appointed by the authorities to represent the applicant had been informed of the date of the next hearing, but not of his appointment. As a result of that omission on the part of the authorities the lawyer had been absent and the applicant had been represented by a different replacement at each hearing. Although there was no indication that the replacements had been in any way acquainted with their client’s case, they had not requested an adjournment in order to familiarise themselves with it. Furthermore, they had not requested that evidence be taken from the witnesses for the defendant whose appearance had been authorised by Naples District Court at the request of the first two lawyers.   Given the patent shortcomings of the officially-appointed lawyers, it had been incumbent upon the Italian authorities to intervene. However, there was nothing in the case file to indicate that they had taken steps to ensure that the accused was adequately defended and represented. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6. In view of that finding, it did not consider it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   9,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Fazilet Partisi and Kutan v. Turkey (no. 1444/02)   Striking out The applicants are a political party, Fazilet Partisi (Virtue Party), and its former chairman, Mehmet Recai Kutan, a Turkish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Ankara.   On 22 June 2001 the Constitutional Court dissolved Fazilet on the ground that it had become a “centre of activities contrary to the principle of secularism”. At the time it had 111 members of parliament.   The applicants submitted that Fazilet’s dissolution breached Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and that they had been victims of a violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). They also alleged a violation of Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and submitted that the Constitutional Court had exceeded its powers for the purposes of Articles 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions of rights).   In a letter of 2 December 2005 Mr Kutan informed the Court that the applicants intended to withdraw their application. In the circumstances, the Court considered that there was no justification for continuing to examine the case. Furthermore, and in view particularly of the attitude of the applicants as expressed in the letter in question, it found that there was no particular reason to consider that respect for human rights required it to continue its examination of the application. The Court therefore decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment) Violation of Article 13 Soner and Others v. Turkey (no. 40986/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Özgür Soner, Hakan Yılmaz and İlkay Özçelik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1976 and 1974 respectively and lived in Ankara at the material time.   Mr Soner was arrested and taken into police custody on 21 December 1993 on charges of distributing pamphlets, unauthorised display of posters and throwing Molotov cocktails. At the end of his police custody, on 29 December 1993, he was placed in detention pending trial, after being examined by a doctor who noted that he had several grazes on his right hip, his right vertebrae and his lower right leg, and that he was complaining of an injury which had caused hearing problems with his right ear.   Mr Yılmaz was arrested on 18 April 1993 along with 81 other people demonstrating against a police operation against the illegal organisation Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left). The day following his arrest, a doctor noted that he had a scratch on his right shoulder. The applicant was placed in detention pending trial before being released on 14 September 1993.   Miss Özçelik was arrested and placed in police custody on 12 January 1994 during a search of the offices of the newspaper Devrimci Gençlik (Revolutionary Youth). On 26 January 1994 she was brought before a judge, who ordered her release.   On 4 July 1995 Ankara State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged. Mr Soner was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and Mr Yılmaz to ten years’ imprisonment for membership of an armed gang. They were also given sentences of four years, five months and ten days’ imprisonment each for planting explosive devices. Miss   Özçelik was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for membership of an armed gang.   In 2000, 22 prisoners, including Mr Soner, lodged a complaint alleging ill-treatment by members of the Ankara police force and gendarmerie between 1980 and 1996. The public prosecutor gave an order discontinuing the proceedings on the ground that no evidence had been adduced in support of the complaint and that the offences complained of were time ‑ barred.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Soner and Mr Yılmaz complained of the treatment they had received during their detention in police custody and submitted that they had had no remedy by which to complain of that treatment, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). In addition, relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the three applicants complained that the proceedings leading to their convictions had been unfair.   The Court considered that the injuries to Mr Soner’s body noted during the forensic medical examination attained a sufficient level of severity to come within the scope of Article 3, but did not amount to the acts of torture described by the applicant. Even assuming that the applicant had been injured during his arrest, the number of injuries found on his body eight days afterwards appeared too great to correspond to the use of proportionate force in apprehending two people who, in all likelihood, had not posed a particular threat. As it saw no evidence which might absolve Turkey of its responsibility for the injuries sustained by Mr   Soner at the hands of the police, regardless of when they had been inflicted, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   As to Mr Yılmaz, the forensic medical report drawn up the day after his arrest indicated only minimal injuries which did not appear to attain the level of severity required by Article 3 and which, moreover, appeared consistent with the use of proportionate force during the skirmishes which had taken place when he was arrested. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of Mr Yılmaz.   Given the absence of any investigation into the matters complained of by Mr Soner, and the indifference of the authorities responsible for dealing with his complaint, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3. It considered that it was not necessary to examine Mr Yılmaz’s complaints under that Article.   Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the complaint concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the State security court. As to the other complaints regarding the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a tribunal 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; consequently, it held that there was no need to examine these complaints.   By way of just satisfaction the Court awarded Mr Soner EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and the three applicants jointly EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 630 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Varlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 57299/00)   Violation of Article 10 The nine applicants, Abdullah Mehmet Varlı, Kazım Yakmaz, Mehmet Reşit Irgat, Mehmet Yağmur, Kerem Soylu, Ali Şola, Reşit Koçeroğlu, İsmet Kılıçarslan and Mehmet Gürkey, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1939, 1938, 1948, 1935, 1945, 1955, 1947, 1932 and 1935 respectively and live in İzmir, Bursa, Istanbul, Adana and Mersin. At the material time they were members or supporters of HADEP (the People’s Democracy Party).   In August and September 1996 they drew up a declaration entitled “Open letter for peace and fraternity” seeking to draw public attention to the Kurdish question in Turkey. The applicants, who had all graduated from “İman-Hatip” secondary schools (which provide basic training for religious functionaries) used verses from the Koran to support their arguments in the declaration. The declaration in question consisted of virulent criticism of the Turkish Government centred on serious allegations of ill-treatment of citizens of Kurdish origin, and invoked religious precepts in calling for an end to the situation.   The declaration was addressed to the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and the President of the Grand National Assembly, and was published in two daily newspapers and in the party’s newsletter.   On 17 September 1998 Ankara State Security Court sentenced each of the applicants to two years’ imprisonment for disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State and inciting others to discrimination based on racial or regional origin by referring to the existence of a Kurdish nation within Turkey. The court ordered that all copies of the impugned newsletter be seized.   Following the enactment of an amnesty law in April 1999 the applicants were granted conditional release after serving seven months in prison. The new legislation provided for execution of the sentences to be postponed on condition that the applicants did not commit the same offence within three years.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that the proceedings leading to their convictions had been unfair. They also submitted that their convictions had been in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court ruled 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.   The Court further considered that the reasons advanced by the Turkish courts were not in themselves sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. It was true that certain particularly acerbic passages of the declaration painted an extremely negative picture of the policies pursued by the Turkish State in the past vis ‑ à ‑ vis the Kurdish question, and thus gave the declaration a hostile tone. However, the Court noted that the applicants had been expressing their views in their capacity as men of religion and members of a political party as part of their role within Turkish society. The declaration did not incite others to violence, armed resistance or an uprising, nor did it amount to hate speech; that, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court further noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicants had not been instituted until six months after publication of the impugned declaration. Finally, the Court took account of the nature and severity of the sentences imposed on the applicants.   In those circumstances the Court considered that the applicants’ convictions had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and as such not “necessary in a democratic society”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 6,000 each for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Yıltaş Yıldız Turistik Tesisleri A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 30502/96)   Just satisfaction Yıltaş Yıldız Turistik Tesisleri A.Ş. is a Turkish public limited company in the construction sector based in Istanbul. It owned an area of “private woodland” measuring almost 4,000,000 square metres, which was expropriated.   In a judgment of 24 April 2003 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts for the expropriation had been unreasonable in relation to the value of the property.   In its judgment concerning just satisfaction delivered today, the Court awarded the applicant company EUR 6,100,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Zasurtsev v. Russia (no. 67051/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Nikolay Aleksandrovich Zasurtsev, is a Russian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Ruzayevka, Republic of Mordovia (Russia).   In 1987 the applicant took part in emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. On 30 June 2000 Ruzayevskiy District Court awarded him special disability benefits. The judgment was subsequently quashed in supervisory review procedure.   The applicant complained about the quashing of that judgment, relying 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. The Court found that 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 held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant RUR 23,280 (approximately EUR 687) for costs and expenses. It also held unanimously that there was no need to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   The applicants in the following cases all complained about the length of the proceedings to which they were a party. In Inexco v. Greece and the Slovenian cases, the applicants also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of those proceedings, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kefalas and others v. Greece (no. 40051/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1(length)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Inexo v. Greece (no. 11720/03) Antolič v. Slovenia (no. 27946/02) Benedejčič and Tratnik v. Slovenia (no. 39178/02) Đaković v. Slovenia (no. 32964/02) Draganovič v. Slovenia (no. 38310/02) Dragovan v. Slovenia (no. 37289/02) Fonda v. Slovenia (no. 39137/02) Gashi v. Slovenia (no. 37057/02) Grušovnik v. Slovenia (no. 38333/02) Hribar v. Slovenia (no. 33541/02) Ješič v. Slovenia (no. 38341/02) Kočevar v. Slovenia (no. 40128/02) Krajnc v. Slovenia (no. 27694/02) Kunstič v. Slovenia (no. 28922/02) Mandir v. Slovenia (no. 40125/02) Marjan Hriberšek v. Slovenia (no. 36054/02) Ovniček v. Slovenia (no. 33561/02) Radanović v. Slovenia (no. 37296/02) Radivojević v. Slovenia (no. 41511/02) Rodič v. Slovenia (no. 38528/02) Šimek Hudomalj v. Slovenia (no. 38933/02) Šolinc v. Slovenia (no. 33538/02) Stropnik v. Slovenia (no. 39160/02) Višnjar v. Slovenia (no. 36550/02) Zgonjanin v. Slovenia (no. 35063/02)     ***   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.