CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 juillet 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 } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9DBEDD8 { width:97.46pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s20841D92 { width:159.5pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s792C8EB0 { width:22.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2992ED93 { width:63.08%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDC3D8F8A { width:19.82%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF673D503 { width:17.1%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s782E7FC0 { width:63.08%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC3ACB8E1 { width:19.82%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5062CC34 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:17.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s8CB6B851 { width:17.1%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEAC79953 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:19pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8256E78A { height:14.3pt } .s61904ECB { width:63.08%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8BFE6EA1 { width:19.82%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD2EDD4C2 { width:17.1%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE4F7B1B { width:78.82pt; 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   398 4.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Malta, Poland, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 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 6 § 1 (length) Zarb v. Malta (application no 16631/04)   No violation of Article 13 The applicant, Nazzareno Zarb, is a Maltese national who was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Corradino Prison (Malta).   On 5 April 1991 the applicant was brought before the Court of Magistrates sitting as a Court of Criminal Inquiry. On 15 February 1995 he was found guilty of theft and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. On 15 January 2004 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal.   The applicant also filed a constitutional claim as a result of which it was found that his case had not been decided within a reasonable time. He was awarded 100 Maltese liras (approximately 240 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and about the low level of compensation he had received in respect of the length of those proceedings, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that there had been acknowledgment, at domestic level, of the violation of the applicant’s rights. The applicant had been awarded approximately EUR 240 for an overall length of more than 12 years and nine months for two instances. Thus, the Constitutional Court applied a rate of less than EUR 19 per annum. The Court observed that that amount was approximately 1.7 % of what it generally awarded in similar Italian cases. That factor in itself led to a result that was manifestly unreasonable having regard to the Court’s case-law. As the redress received by the applicant was therefore not appropriate and sufficient, the Court considered that the applicant could still claim to be the “victim” of a breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted 12 years, nine months and ten days for two levels of jurisdiction. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considered that in the applicant’s case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Concerning the availability of a remedy for excessively lengthy legal proceedings in Malta, the Court noted that Maltese law enabled the applicant to raise with the national courts his complaint about the length of the proceedings.   The Court also observed that there was no limit to the amount of compensation which could be granted to an applicant in such proceedings. The amount awarded to the applicant was at the discretion of the domestic court. The mere fact that the amount of compensation was low did not render the remedy in itself ineffective. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   13.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,500   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Dzyruk v. Poland (no. 77832/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Jarosław Dzyruk, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and is currently detained in Hrubieszów Prison (Poland).   On 9 March 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody. On 12   March 2001 Włodawa District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of fraud. On 3   December 2001 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention, finding that it was highly probable that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The court further found that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding or obstruct the proceedings.   On 31 January 2002 the applicant was indicted on charges of fraud. He was accused of having obtained a total of 270 German Marks and 1,600   US Dollars under false pretences from ten Dutch, French and German nationals, who had believed that he was a women using the pseudonym “Narcissus Flower” ( Narcyza Kwiatek ) who was apparently interested in meeting and visiting them.   The applicant filed an application for release, which was dismissed on 11   February 2002 on the same grounds as before. The court further prolonged his detention, finding that the applicant’s place of permanent residence was far from the trial court and, if released, he would obstruct the proceedings. On 8 March, 6 June and 30 July 2002 the applicant’s detention on remand was again prolonged on the same grounds as before.   On 5 August 2002 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine.   He lodged an appeal and, on 15 July 2003, Lublin Regional Court partly amended the judgment against him.   The applicant complained about the length of time he had spent in detention (a year and almost five months) and also submitted that his correspondence, in particular that with the Court, was censored by the authorities during his detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Concerning the length of the applicant’s detention, the Court concluded that the grounds given by the domestic authorities were not “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify the time the applicant had spent in detention and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. Concerning the alleged interference with the applicant’s correspondence, the Court observed that the censorship of the letter to the applicant from the Court was contrary to Article 103 of the Polish Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences of 1997 and therefore not “in accordance with the law”. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   400 for costs and expenses. (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:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Blagovestnyy v. Russia (no. 72558/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Pavel Dmitriyevich Blagovestnyy, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Elista (Russia).   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in the applicant’s favour and awarded him EUR 1,250 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Erkan v. Turkey (no. 1291/03) Kamile Uyanık v. Turkey (no. 12087/03) Karaman and Beyazıt v. Turkey (no. 73739/01) Kutlu v. Turkey (no. 65914/01) Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 12068/03) Uyanık v. Turkey (no. 49514/99) Yayabaşı v. Turkey (no. 12083/03) The applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained of delays in payment of additional compensation for expropriation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in Karaman and Beyazıt also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court concluded unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and took the view that it was not necessary to consider separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and, in respect of pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, awarded them the total amounts set out below, expressed in euros. (The judgments are available only in English, except for Karaman and Beyazıt v. Turkey which is available only in French.)       Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Erkan v. Turkey (no. 1291/03) 475 500 Kamile Uyanık v. Turkey (no. 12087/03) 3,460 500 Karaman and Beyazıt v. Turkey (no. 73739/01) 3,369 1,000 Kutlu v. Turkey (no. 65914/01) 26,490 1,000 Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 12068/03) 11,055 500 Uyanık v. Turkey (no. 49514/99) 20,700 500 Yayabaşı v. Turkey (no. 12083/03) 4,480 500     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Rylski v. Poland (no. 24706/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   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.