CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s97C4B4C1 { width:44pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   313 30.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, France, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 8    No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) R. v. Finland (application no 34141/96)   The applicant, R., is a Finnish national who was born in 1958.   In November 1992 the applicant’s five-year-old son was placed in a children’s home on account of his late development, the mother’s violent behaviour and both parents’ incapacity to raise him. The boy was moved to a substitute family in June 1995.   The care order anticipated that the boy would need long term care and it aimed to place him in a substitute family. According to an entry in the boy’s care records, as kept by the children’s home, the intention was that M. should be placed with substitute parents and that the process of separation from his biological parents should be started.   The applicant was initially allowed to see his son once or sometimes twice a month in the children’s home and subsequently once every other month. The applicant requested the termination of public care in September 1993 and again in January 1994 and brought two sets of access proceedings, without success.   The applicant complained that there had been no legal basis for maintaining the relevant public care order or access restrictions. He also complained about the length and fairness of the proceedings. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that no serious and sustained effort had been made by the social welfare authority to facilitate a family reunification during the many years the boy was in care. Furthermore, it found that the severe restrictions on the applicant’s right to visit his son reflected the social welfare authority’s intention to strengthen the ties between the boy and his substitute carers rather than to reunite the applicant and his son. Concluding that the authorities failed to take sufficient steps to facilitate a possible reunification of the applicant’s family, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the various proceedings and that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Articles   6 § 1, 8 and 13 as regards the remaining aspects of the proceedings. The applicant made no claim for compensation or costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) SARL Aborcas v. France (no. 59423/00)   The applicant company, SARL Aborcas, is a private limited company incorporated in France, with its registered office at Lanta (Haute-Garonne, France).   In December 1994 Miss L., former mistress of the applicant company’s manager Mr Borowik, lodged a complaint against him at the gendarmerie for rape and malicious accusation and for attempted blackmail, on the ground that he had been harassing her by repeated telephone calls in which he accused her in particular of stealing a video-recorder and threatened to release nude photographs of her.   Mr Borowik was held in police custody on 27 and 28 June 1995. The company’s premises were searched.   In a confirmatory judgment of 21 November 1996, Toulouse Court of Appeal found Mr Borowik guilty of the offence of malicious accusation and ordered him to pay Miss L. 3,000 French Francs (FRF) (equivalent to 457 euros (EUR)) in damages, plus court costs.   On 16 January 1997 the company manager, in turn, lodged his own complaint with the senior investigating judge of Castres against Miss L., accusing her in particular of malicious accusation and applying to act as a civil party.   In a letter of 7 August 1997 to the registry of the Castres criminal court, the applicant company declared that it was “expressly” applying to join the proceedings as a civil party to seek damages “for the theft of the company’s video-recorder and for the commercial loss that it had sustained”.   In a judgment of 4 March 1998 the criminal court, ruling in the civil-party proceedings, found that Mr Borowik “could not claim any loss on behalf of his company”. He was awarded a token sum of one franc in damages for his non-pecuniary loss. Mr Borowik appealed in his capacity as manager of the applicant company.   In a confirmatory judgment of 25 June 1998 the Court of Appeal of Toulouse declared his claims inadmissible finding that, since the company had not intervened as a civil party at first instance it could not now act as appellant. The Court of Cassation likewise declared inadmissible the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant company, on the ground that it lacked standing before that court as it had not been a party to the appeal proceedings.   The applicant company complained that it had not had a fair hearing since both the court of appeal and the court of cassation had refused to hear its case, inaccurately declaring that it had not been a party to the appeal proceedings. It relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court observed, as the Government had admitted, that the applicant company had applied, in a letter of 7 August 1997, to join the proceedings before the criminal court of Castres as a civil party.   The Court found that, in wrongly considering that the applicant company had no civil-party status, the court of appeal and court of cassation had prevented it from using an existing and available remedy, with the result that its right of access to a court had been breached. The Court considered, in the circumstances of the case, that the applicant company had been prevented from exercising its right of access to a court and unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant company EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Kwiek v. Poland (no. 51895/99)   The applicant, Bogdan Kwiek, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Chelm (Poland).   In September 1994 the applicant began serving a five-year prison sentence for robbery. He was later charged with murder and other offences and detained on remand. In August 2000 he was convicted of armed robbery and possessing a firearm and ammunition without a licence.   During his time in prison his correspondence with the Constitutional Court, the registry of the European Court of Human Rights, his defence counsel and his sister-in-law were opened without his permission by the relevant domestic authorities.   The applicant complained about the censorship of his mail. He relied on of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court recalled that in its previous case-law it had concluded that Polish Law concerning the control of correspondence in force before 1 September 1998 did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of the exercise of discretion conferred on public authorities. Finding no reason to depart from its previous decisions, the Court found that the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with his defence counsel in respect of that period was not “in accordance with law” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Concerning the period after 1 September 1998, the Court noted that the Government admitted that the domestic authorities had acted contrary to the statutory prohibitions laid down for that purpose in Polish law regarding the applicant’s correspondence with the Constitutional Court and the Court Registry. Consequently, the Court held that the interference was not “in accordance with the law” and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   As to the applicant’s correspondence with his sister-in-law, the Court accepted that there was a legal basis for the opening and reading of the letters in question and that the censorship pursued a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of crime. It also found that the interference could be considered necessary in a democratic society, given the serious nature of the crimes for which the applicant stood accused. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 with respect to the opening of those letters.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Wiensztal v. Poland (no. 43748/98)   The applicant, Rafał Wiensztal, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Radom (Poland).   The applicant was arrested on 24 August 1994 on suspicion of extorting protection money from an escort agency and was detained on remand by the Gdańsk regional prosecutor.   On 15 March 1996, in a separate set of criminal proceedings, the Elblag regional court sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant finished serving his sentence on 11 September and was again detained on remand until 30 April 1998 under police supervision. He was later convicted as charged and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.   The Gdańsk judicial authorities prolonged the applicant’s detention numerous times and rejected his appeals for release. The authorities relied on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence and on the gravity of the offences. Taking into consideration his involvement in the activities of organised criminals, they also referred to risk that he might obstruct the taking of evidence from the witnesses if he were released. The overall length of his detention on remand was over two years and two months.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the length of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court found that the reasons given by the national courts were “relevant” and “sufficient” throughout the whole period of the applicant’s detention on remand. Furthermore, it considered that, in view of the complexity of the case and the need to establish the applicant’s criminal responsibility, his detention was in conformity with the “reasonable time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Doğrusöz and Aslan v. Turkey (no. 1262/02)   The applicants, Edip Doğrusöz and Mehmet Aslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1931 and 1930 and live in Ankara and Hatay (Turkey), respectively.   In 1965 the applicants bought a plot of land in Hatay from the Samandağ Municipality. On 16   December 1999 the Samandağ first instance court annulled the applicants’ title in accordance with the coastal law, holding that the land in question had to be under the authority of the State as it was located within the coastline area. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicants complained that the authorities’ deprived them of their land without payment of compensation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court noted that Samandağ Civil Court’s decision to register the land in the name of the Treasury was prescribed by law and that it was not in dispute that that impugned measure was in the public interest. However, the Court considered that, in the absence of adequate compensation in exchange for their property, a fair balance had not been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. Consequently it held unanimously that that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants EUR   26,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)    Violation of Article 8    Violation of Article 13 Ebru and Tayfun Engin Çolak v. Turkey (no. 60176/00)   The applicants, Ebru Çolak and her son Tayfun Engin Çolak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1991 respectively and live in Bursa (Turkey).   On 2 April 1992 the applicant, acting in her own name and on behalf of her son (second applicant), brought a paternity suit in Istanbul district court against Emrah İpek, a folk-singer, claiming that he was her child’s biological father.   On 19 December 1994 that court attributed paternity to Emrah İpek, on the basis of the blood and genetic test results, which were 99.77% conclusive, and all the other evidence before it. It ordered the registrar-general to amend the child’s birth certificate to include the name of Emrah İpek.   On 7 February 1996 the Court of Cassation, ruling on an application for the judgment to be varied, quashed the judgment of 19 December 1994 and remitted the case to the first-instance court, which ordered supplementary tests to be carried out at the Ministry of Justice’s Forensic Institute.   Between 24 July 1996 and 11 February 1999 the District Court fixed 11 appointments for DNA tests. The defendant did not attend any of them. In the meantime, on 10 December 1998, the court decided to lodge a complaint for abuse of authority with the public prosecutor against the police officers responsible for executing an arrest warrant. It also decided to notify Emrah İpek that failure on his part to submit to DNA tests would be construed as an admission of paternity.   On 28 February 2000 the Institute concluded in its report that paternity could be attributed to Emrah İpek with 99.99% certainty. On 17 May 2000 the court ruled that he was the father. On 18 January 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the lower court.   The various stages of the proceedings received wide media coverage because of Emrah İpek’s celebrity status.   The applicants complained of the excessive length of the proceedings and of the lack of a judicial forum to which a complaint might be submitted. They argued that, throughout that period, they had been in the media spotlight because Emrah İpek was a celebrity, and that if they had received maintenance, the child would have had a better life and education. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court noted that a period of over eight years and nine months was to be taken into consideration for a case of no great complexity at five levels of jurisdiction. The Court found that such a length of time was excessive, particularly in view of the applicants’ interest in the dispute, and did not meet the reasonable-time requirement. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court found that the civil proceedings had failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants’ right to establish the truth as to the boy’s paternity without undue delay, and the right of the alleged father not to have to undergo DNA tests. In conclusion, the inability of the domestic courts to settle the paternity issue in a timely manner had left the applicants in a prolonged state of uncertainty as to the child’s individual identity. The applicants’ right to respect for their private life had thus been breached and the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Government had failed to indicate the existence of any specific remedy by which the applicants might have complained about the length of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 because of the lack in domestic law of a remedy allowing the applicants to assert their right to a ruling on their case within a reasonable time.   The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (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:   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 İbrahim Yalçinkaya v. Turkey (no. 14788/03) Kökmen v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 903/03)   In both these cases the applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of the length of the proceedings and of a loss in the value of the compensation that had been awarded to them following expropriations. They alleged that the interest they had received did not take into account the actual rate of inflation in Turkey.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. Considering that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, it awarded EUR 14,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses to Mr Yalçinkaya, and EUR 12,000 for pecuniary damage to Mr Kökmen. (The judgments are only available in French.)   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Barszcaz v. Poland (no. 71152/01) ***   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.