CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD4372097 { width:8.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s8E007A25 { width:327.58pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s87E99523 { width:129.48pt; display:inline-block } .s61267FA0 { width:91.51pt; display:inline-block } .s64660EDA { width:280.18pt; display:inline-block } .s4FCD5481 { width:101.45pt; display:inline-block } .s5F9E2D68 { width:32.78pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s41259887 { width:126.85pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; 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 } .s38478FA8 { width:45.99pt; 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   300 23.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   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]   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Kounov v. Bulgaria (application no 24379/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Alexandar Angelov Kounov is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Roussé (Bulgaria).   The applicant was arrested in December 1998 on suspicion of theft and interviewed by police officers. He claimed that they had subsequently released him, but according to the Bulgarian Government he had absconded while under arrest. Some two months later he was placed under judicial investigation on charges of burglary. A search was undertaken but he could not be traced and on 7 July 1999 he was found guilty as charged and sentenced in absentia to four years’ imprisonment.   Mr Kounov, who had also been convicted of a number of other burglaries, was arrested and imprisoned on 19 November 1999. He brought proceedings seeking a fresh examination of his case, alleging that he had been unaware of the proceedings pending against him and that he had been unable to prepare his defence. On 4 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal, finding that he had deliberately absconded from the proceedings when he escaped from the police station and that it was because of his wrongful conduct that he had been tried in absentia .   The applicant alleged that he had been unable to obtain the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him following his conviction in absentia . He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant had been tried in absentia and that he had not received any official information as to the accusations against him or the date of his trial. As the applicant had not been notified of the charges against him, there was no evidence before the Court to show that he had been aware of the opening of proceedings, of his committal for trial or of the trial date. The authorities’ attempts to execute the arrest warrant had proved unsuccessful and none of the procedural steps had been notified to the applicant, only to the officially assigned defence counsel. Having been interviewed about the facts by police officers, he could only have suspected that proceedings might be initiated but had no way of precisely knowing what charges were to be brought.   In those circumstances, the Court did not consider it established that the applicant had had sufficient knowledge of the proceedings or of the accusations against him on the basis of which he could deliberately decide to abscond or unequivocally waive his right to appear in court and defend himself. Accordingly, Article 6 of the Convention required that he should have had the possibility to obtain a re-trial of his case, but that had been denied by the Supreme Court of Cassation.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant and awarded him 1,299 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   No violation of Article 8 Riener v. Bulgaria (no. 46343/99)   No violation of Article 13 The applicant, Ianka Riener, has been an Austrian national since 1989. At the time of the events in question, she also had Bulgarian nationality. She was born in 1946 and lives in Sofia. Her husband, daughter and grandchildren all live in Austria.   She was the co-owner and commercial director of a company registered in Austria. She was also registered in Bulgaria as a foreigner conducting economic activities there. Between 1991 and 1995 the applicant spent most of her time in Bulgaria and has   remained there ever since.   In a decision published on 1 July 1992, a district fiscal authority in Sofia declared that the applicant owed the equivalent of approximately 1 million US dollars in unpaid excise tax and interest. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. The Passport Department of the Police subsequently issued an order imposing a ban on the applicant from leaving the country and ordered that her travel documents be seized. Her Austrian passport was later confiscated. The order relied on section 29(1)(v) of the Law on the Sojourn of Aliens in Bulgaria. The applicant appealed, claiming that she was a Bulgarian citizen and that such measures could not be applied to her. The courts rejected her appeals finding that her obligation to pay the outstanding taxes, as established by the court, was sufficient ground in law to seize any passport used for international travel.   The travel ban was maintained in force via internal notes from the fiscal authorities which periodically informed the passport police that the debt had not been paid. It was finally lifted in August 2004 when the Ministry of the Interior repealed the prohibition at the request of the Sofia tax authority, since the statutory prescription period for the applicant’s debt had expired.   The applicant made several attempts to renounce her Bulgarian citizenship. Her request was finally granted in December 2004.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the ban preventing her from leaving Bulgaria, the refusal of her request to renounce Bulgarian citizenship and the alleged lack of effective remedies in relation to those events. She relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   The Court found that the authorities had failed to give due consideration to the principle of proportionality in their decisions and that the travel ban imposed on the applicant was of an automatic nature and of indeterminate duration. It also noted a lack of clarity in the law and practice with regard to some of the issues. It further noted that the impugned measure was maintained over a lengthy period and was disproportionate to the aim it pursued, ie to recover the tax debt. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4.   In view of that finding the Court held, by six votes to one, that it was unnecessary to examine what amounted essentially to the same facts and decisions with regard to Article 8.   With regard to her complaint regarding the lack of an effective remedy, the Court noted that, although the applicant was, in theory, able to appeal against the travel ban, the domestic courts were only concerned with the formal lawfulness of the prohibition and not the substance of her complaint. Among other things, the duration of the restrictions, the applicant’s ability to pay, the right to respect for her private and family life were all deemed irrelevant.   The Court therefore found that the scope of review afforded to her in Bulgarian law was too limited, and it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   However, the Court found unanimously no violation of Articles 8 and 13 with regard to the refusal of the authorities to grant her requests to renounce her citizenship, as those decisions did not interfere with her right to respect for her private life.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Mattila v. Finland (no. 77138/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Varga v. Hungary (no. 3360/04)   The first applicant, Jukka-Pekka Mattila, is a Finnish national who was born in 1963 and lives in London. The second applicant, István Varga, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Komárom (Hungary).   In April 1992 Mr Mattila was questioned by the police and taken into custody. In   May 1994 he was charged with criminal offences including aggravated tax fraud, debtor’s dishonesty, accounting irregularities and aggravated fraud. In July 2000 he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and fined. The Supreme Court refused him leave to appeal on 21 March 2001.   Criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Varga on 3 July 1994 for arms trafficking, among other things. He was acquitted of all charges on 22 May 1994.   The applicants complained, in particular, about the length of the proceedings relying, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in both cases had lasted for almost nine years. Having regard to the circumstances of each 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 in both cases.   Mr Mattila’s other complaints were declared inadmissible.   Mr Mattila was awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses and Mr Varga was awarded EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey (no. 58398/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Hasan Ceylan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.   On 9 October 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and was later remanded in custody. On 24 December 1999 he was convicted of aiding and abetting members of an illegal organisation.   Between those two dates İstanbul State Security Court held a number of hearings during which the applicant’s continued detention on remand was ordered. The court repeatedly relied on “the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence” in their decisions.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (liberty and security).   The Court noted the lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic court’s decisions to prolong the applicant’s remand in custody and that the reasons that were given did not justify the entire length of his detention.   The Court concluded that the length of the pre-trial detention, which lasted five years and two months, taken together with the stereotyped reasoning of the court, exceeded the “reasonable-time requirement” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. The applicant was awarded EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 285 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kiper v. Turkey (no. 44785/98)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length § fairness)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length § fairness) Şuyur v. Turkey (no. 13797/02) The first applicant, Nihat Kiper was born in 1970 and was serving his prison sentence at Adıyaman Prison at the time the application was lodged. The second applicant, Abdürrezzak Şuyur, is currently serving life imprisonment. They are both Turkish nationals.   Mr Kiper was arrested on 19 March 1993 and was later remanded in custody. He was charged with harbouring members of the PKK, concealing their weapons and holding meetings for the organisation in his house. In March 1997 Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment and barred him from public service. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment on 15 June 1998.   Mr Şuyur was taken into custody on 26 April 1993 on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organisation and was later detained on remand. In June 1993 he was also accused of aiding and abetting that organisation. The State Security Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention 58 times basing their decision each time on the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the file. On 27 December 2001 he was sentenced to death by Diyarbakır State Security Court. The sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 10 July 2002.   Both applicants complained, among other things, about the length and fairness of the criminal proceedings. They both relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Mr Şuyur also complained about the length of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (liberty and security).   The Court noted the lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic court’s decisions to prolong Mr Şuyur’s remand in custody. It also found that the reasons that were given could not justify the entire duration of his detention. It therefore concluded that the length of his pre-trial detention, lasting well over eight-and-a-half years, taken together with the stereotyped reasoning used by the court, was excessive, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   As in a number of similar cases, the Court found that the applicants’ concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the State Security Court due to the presence on the bench of a military judge could be regarded as objectively justified. It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both cases. It also noted that in no circumstances could a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established grant a fair trial to those within its jurisdiction; accordingly it found that it was not necessary to consider the applicants other complaints under Article 6 § 1.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted five years and three months in Mr Kiper’ case and more than nine years and two months in Mr Şuyur’s case. Having regard to the circumstances of each 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.   Mr Kiper was awarded EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 370 for costs and expenses and Mr   Şuyur was awarded EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Cole v. United Kingdom (no. 60933/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Leslie James Cole, is a British national who was born in 1952 and lives in Plymouth (United Kingdom).   In 1999 the applicant was left a widower with two children, born in 1986 and 1989. In March 2000 he was refused widow’s benefits by the Social Security Appeal Tribunal because only women were entitled to such benefits. He was refused leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioner.   The applicant complained that he was not entitled to Widow's Payment and Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widow's Pension. He relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 16,380.03 pounds sterling (GBP) (approximately EUR 23,950) is to be paid to the applicant. (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.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Fodor v. Hungary (no. 4564/03) Jávor and Others v. Hungary (no. 11440/02) Heská v. the Czech Republic (no. 43772/02)     ***   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.