CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sBD37143A { width:32.06pt; display:inline-block } .s2201579D { width:26.09pt; display:inline-block } .sFE40E937 { width:138.81pt; display:inline-block } .s4CDF22F7 { width:158.81pt; display:inline-block } .sBC4BC80B { width:220.25pt; display:inline-block } .s83FAB5E8 { width:56.12pt; display:inline-block } .s46EC3874 { width:290.92pt; display:inline-block } .s839694A8 { width:264.24pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s54EFAE96 { width:27.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s600543DD { width:87.44pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sBB409AB7 { width:11.48pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s87EB194D { width:149.48pt; 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   408 6.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 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.     Papa v. Greece (application no 21091/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Andrea Papa, is a Greek national who was born in 1982 and lives in Athens.   In April 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and placed in pre-trial detention. After being acquitted in June 2003, he brought an action for compensation for the period spent in prison. The Athens Assize Court dismissed his application on the ground that there was strong evidence against him at the time he was placed in detention.   Relying on Article 6 §1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleged that the judgment refusing him any compensation for the period spent in pre-trial detention had not given reasons.   Pointing out that it had already criticised the practice of the Greek courts of first instance consisting in dismissing compensation claims without giving sufficient reasons, the European Court of Human Rights concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 and awarded the applicant 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   81 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Beka-Koulocheri v. Greece (no. 38878/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Asimina Beka-Koulocheri, is a Greek national who lives in Spata (Greece).   In 1989 the Greek State expropriated a plot of land which belonged to the applicant and was located in the Attica region, with a view to changing the boundary plan for the district concerned. On 30 July 2003 the Athens Administrative Court, to which the applicant had applied, referred the case back to the authorities for amendment of the district boundary plan and, consequently, withdrawal of the contested expropriation. As no appeal was lodged, that decision became final.   To date the authorities have not yet amended the boundary plan affecting the applicant’s possessions.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the authorities’ refusal to execute the decision in her favour.   The Court notes that, although the decision of 30 July 2003 was served on the authorities as early as autumn 2003, they had shown no interest in complying with it and had displayed total inertia, for which no valid explanation had been provided. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13.   As the applicant had submitted no claim for just satisfaction within the required time-limit, the Court considered that no award was to be made under Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Telecki v. Poland (no. 56552/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Grzegorz Telecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Lublin (Poland).   The applicant was arrested on 1 February 1999 on suspicion of fraud and of membership of a gang and placed in pre-trial detention. He made several unsuccessful appeals against the decisions ordering that he be kept in custody. On 26 June 2001 the Biskupiec District Court convicted him of sixteen frauds and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive.   The Court noted that the applicant had been kept in pre-trial detention for two years, five months and 26 days. It considered that the reasons adduced by the Polish authorities to justify keeping the applicant in custody had not been “relevant” and “sufficient” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in that respect. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Roşca v. Romania (no. 75129/01)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Sorinel-Cristian Roşca, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bucharest. At the material time, he was a civil servant in the Romanian Civil Aviation Authority, and was responsible, in particular, for issuing flight clearances and landing permits to aircraft crossing Romanian airspace.   Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for forging commercial documents, criminal conspiracy and smuggling in the context of a case involving the large-scale smuggling of cigarettes via Bucharest military airport. In particular, he was accused of having authorised the landing at Otopeni military airport of aircraft transporting smuggled cigarettes and of having damaged certain computerised data bases in order to hide the evidence of his actions.   On 26 February 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice sentenced the applicant to eight years’ imprisonment for complicity in a smuggling operation, forgery and the destruction of telecommunications equipment. The applicant received a presidential pardon in July 2003.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for family life), the applicant complained of the unfairness of the proceedings that had resulted in his conviction and the unlawfulness of the tapping of his telephone.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR   7,500. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Zhigalev v. Russia (no. 54891/00)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Vladimir Alexeyevich Zhigalev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Nemcha village in the Kursk Region of Russia. He is a farmer.   In 1992, during the privatisation of collective farms, Mr Zhigalev became head of a private farm. The Kursk Region Bolshesoldatskiy District Administration (the local administration) issued a resolution under which the farm was given a plot of 31 ha of land in ownership and a plot of 315 ha of land in life-time inheritable possession.   The land certificate, issued by the local land authority following the local administration’s resolution, allocated 30.9 ha of land as the applicant’s property, and 315   ha of land as his life-time inheritable possession, referring to the applicant as the sole owner of both plots of land.   On 23 July 1997 the local administration annulled the land certificate as having been issued in breach of the law and of the rights of the other five partners in the farm. The applicant was successful in challenging that decision before a court. The proceedings ended with a decision finding that the local administration had had no jurisdiction to annul the land certificate, as the law only allowed this to be done by way of court proceedings.   On 16 February 1999 such proceedings were brought by the public prosecutor, who requested that the land certificate be declared null and void. The applicant argued that the prosecutor’s claim should be rejected in view of the expiry of the relevant limitation period, but his request was not examined because he only had third party status in the proceedings. The courts found that the land had never been given solely to the applicant but equally to the six partners in the farm. The courts declared the land certificate null and void.   The applicant complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that the land he lawfully owned was taken away from him without compensation. He also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that, as a “third party”, he was unable to have his claim examined by a court that the prosecutor’s action was time-barred, while this was open to the plaintiff and the defendants (the land authority and the local administration).   Having examined the decisions given by the Russian courts, the Court found no indication that the conclusions of the national judicial authorities had been arbitrary or unreasonable.   For the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant could not be deemed to have had “existing possessions” or a “legitimate expectation” in the sense of the Court’s case-law. In those circumstances, the Russian court decisions and the manner in which the domestic courts applied the domestic law could not be considered as an interference with the applicant’s “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Having regard to that conclusion, the Court considered that the applicant had not had a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Consequently, it concluded unanimously that there had also been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 2 (life)   Violation of Article 2 (procedural)   Violation of Article 13 Kavak v. Turkey (no. 53489/99)   No violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment) The applicants, Cayze Kavak and his wife Gıyas Kavak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1931 and 1932 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Their son, Cemal Kavak, an employee at the Diyarbakır court for tax disputes, was found dead in April 1996.   At about 11 p.m. on 24 April 1996, Cemal Kavak left the café Hevsel , where he had spent time with friends. The last recorded sighting of him was when he got off a bus at the Kuruçeşme bus stop. On 26 April 1996 his body was found in bushes near the village of Yuvacık, at the side of the Diyarbakır-Bismil road.   An investigation was opened immediately: the Çınar prosecutor and his gendarmes arrived on the scene with a forensic expert. The latter examined the corpse briefly; noting traces of strangling, the doctor concluded that death had been caused by asphyxia and decided that it was not necessary to carry out an autopsy. Various investigatory measures were taken, including the gathering of evidence from witnesses, and the prosecutor asked the gendarmes to provide details of the make and registration number of those cars which had crossed the traffic checkpoint on the day the corpse was found and on the previous day.   In May 1997 the Çınar prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction in favour of the Diyarbakır prosecutor, on the ground that the death could have been a murder committed by the PKK terrorist organisation. In June 1997, however, the Diyarbakır prosecutor also declared that he did not have jurisdiction, since the case file contained no evidence to the effect that the murder had been committed by the PKK or by another terrorist organisation, and returned the case file to the Çınar prosecutor. In July 1997 the Çınar prosecutor ordered the gendarmes to pursue their investigation into this killing until the limitation period on the crime had expired, namely in April 2016. He also asked to be informed in writing every three months of the progress of the investigation.   The applicants alleged that their son had been the subject of extra-judicial killing and criticised the absence of an effective investigation following his death. They relied, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court declared the application admissible with regard to the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 6 and 13 and inadmissible as to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Having regard to the evidence available to it, the Court noted that the allegations that the applicants’ son had been executed by “paramilitary forces” was based on hypothesis and speculation. Nor had there been any real and immediate threat to the life of the applicants’ son. Accordingly, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 with regard to Cemal Kavak’s death.   As to the investigation carried out into the latter’s death, the Court noted several shortcomings in its conduct. Firstly, the Court was struck by the fact that, although the prosecutor had asked the gendarmes to supply lists of traffic checked at the control point, at no point did he ask for those from the evening on which the applicants’ son failed to return home. Further, it seemed that no analysis had been carried out of the data obtained, even if these concerned the days following the disappearance rather than the night of the disappearance itself. Another key shortcoming was the absence of a full autopsy; although the doctor had concluded, following a superficial examination of the corpse, that this would not be necessary since the cause of death was clear, an autopsy would undoubtedly have made it possible to obtain more precise information as to the exact cause, date and time of death, elements which, in the circumstances of this case, seemed to be of extreme importance, in so far as they would have enabled links to be established with data from the traffic control records.   These elements were sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the investigation conducted in this case, which had entered its tenth year without significant progress, had not been effective. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the absence of an effective investigation into the death of Cemal Kavak.   Given that the criminal investigation had not made it possible to establish the circumstances of the murder and to identify the perpetrators, the applicants had been unable to use the remedies available to them in order to obtain compensation. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Furthermore, the Court had no doubt that the applicants had experienced profound grief as a result of their son’s death. However, it noted that Turkey’s responsibility for their son’s death had not been established. In addition, examination of the case file did not lead to the conclusion that the level of gravity required by Article 3 in this particular type of situation had been reached in the present case. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Finally, having regard to its conclusion under Articles 2 and 13, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1.   With regard to just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR   630 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Keklik v. Turkey (no. 60574/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Dilaver Keklik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959. At the time the application was lodged with the Court, he was detained at Aydın Prison (Turkey).   The applicant, who was suspected of having committed two murders, was arrested in November 1993 as part of an operation against the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), which is proscribed under Turkish law as a terrorist organisation. The İzmir State Security Court convicted him of the accusations against him and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment on 7 June 1999.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had not had a fair trial, on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which had tried and convicted him.   The Court pointed out that where civilians had to appear on criminal charges before a State Security Court composed, inter alia , of a military judge, this constituted legitimate grounds for them to fear that that court lacked independence and impartiality. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 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 8   Violation of Article 13 Campello v. Italy (no. 21757/02) Ciaramella v. Italy (no. 6597/03) The applicants, Giancarlo Campello and Pietro Ciaramella, are Italian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1942 respectively. Mr Campello lives in Bolzano (Italy) and Mr Ciaramella lives in Bénévent (Italy). They were both declared bankrupt.   Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that the disqualifications imposed on them during the bankruptcy proceedings had breached their right to respect for their private life, and alleged that that they had had no means of complaining of that fact. They also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). In the Campello case, the applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court declared the applications admissible with regard to the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 and inadmissible as to the remainder.   The Court considered that, on account of the automatic inclusion of a bankrupt person’s name on the bankruptcy register and the absence of an assessment and judicial review of the application of the disqualifications in issue, and the length of time required in order to be restored to one’s previous position, the interference - provided for in section 50 of the Bankruptcy Act – in the right to respect for the applicants’ private lives had been incompatible with the Convention. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously in both of these cases that there had been a violation of Article 8.   It also concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in these two cases.   The Court awarded Mr Campello EUR   7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In addition, in each of the cases, it awarded the applicants EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Grossi and Others v. Italy (no. 18791/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants are nine Italian nationals who live in Italy (in Udine and Cassino), and in Canada (Toronto). They were co-owners of a plot of land measuring 9,985 square meters, situated in Cassino, which was occupied by the authorities with a view to its expropriation and on which building work was begun. In the absence of formal expropriation and compensation, the applicants brought proceedings in order to obtain damages for the unlawful occupation of their land.   The applicants alleged that the occupation of their land had infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the loss of all ability to dispose of the land in issue, taken together with the failure of the attempts made so far to remedy the situation complained of, amounted to a de facto expropriation which was incompatible with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Accordingly, it concluded 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 consequently reserved it. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. The applicants in Sehur also relied on Article 13 that the domestic legal system failed to afford them an effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Andoniadis v. Greece (no. 10803/04) Rizova v. “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 41228/02)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sehur v. Slovenia (no. 42246/02)   Violation of Article 13     ***   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.