CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 août 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 } .sAB3CDBE7 { width:242.22pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s3BDFADDC { width:49.51pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s5CDDBD2C { width:104.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7559D9B3 { width:110.16pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s1644DDD4 { width:44.81pt; 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   464 8.8.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Italy, Moldova, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten 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 be found at the end of the press release.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Eskelinen and Others v. Finland (application no 43803/98) The applicants, Teuvo Eskelinen, Juha Ruhanen, Timo Kiljunen and Jorma Vesterinen, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1943, 1956, 1958 and 1944, respectively, and live in Lappeenranta (Finland).   The public prosecutor brought charges against the applicants for disclosing a business secret. The applicants pleaded not guilty. In November 1995 they were found guilty as charged and fined. An expert opinion written by Professor M.C. was quoted several times in the Lappeenranta District Court’s judgment.   The parties appealed against the judgment. The second applicant explicitly requested that Professor M.C., among others, be called as a witness, as the applicants had not had an opportunity question him. The applicants also complained that the District Court had failed to take into account any of the statements made by other witnesses called by them.   Without giving any explanation, the Court of Appeal refused to hear any witness and upheld most of the District Court’s reasoning. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.   The applicants complained that the proceedings had been unfair in that the courts had failed to hear Professor M.C. as a witness even though the District Court had based its judgment on his expert statement.   They relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that it had been open to the applicants in the course of the proceedings to challenge Professor M.C’s opinion, as they did. The role of Professor M.C. in the proceedings was not that of someone who had made observations as to the facts of the case but as that of a legal expert. It further noted that the courts were not legally bound by his legal views, nor did they base their conclusions exclusively on his expert opinion. Furthermore, the courts were obliged under the Convention to rule on the applicants’ objections to the charges brought against them, and they complied with that obligation.   The Court concluded that the refusal to call Professor M.C. to be heard in the Court of Appeal did not render the proceedings unfair and consequently held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Stornaiuolo v. Italy (no. 52980/99)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Andrea, Anna and Antonio Stornaiuolo, are Italian nationals who were born in 1939, 1937 and 1947 respectively and live in Naples (Italy).   The applicants owned land in Naples which was occupied by the authorities in March 1974 with a view to its expropriation. On 18 July 1977 the applicants brought proceedings contesting the amount of compensation for expropriation which had been offered to them. In 1990 an expert assessed the market value of the land at 26,600 Italian lire (ITL) per square metre. However, in accordance with the criteria laid down by Law no. 359 of 1992, the applicants were awarded ITL 13,301 per square metre. The proceedings ended on 6   February 2002.   Under the “Pinto Act”, the applicants applied to the court of appeal for compensation in respect of the length of the proceedings to which they had been a party. On 25 March 2002 the court of appeal recognised that the proceedings had been excessively long and awarded the applicants EUR 3,500 each for non-pecuniary damage only. It also awarded them compensation in respect of the costs of the proceedings.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the excessive length of the proceedings to which they had been a party (24- and-a-half years for three levels of jurisdiction) and of the derisory amount of damages awarded by the Italian courts. In addition, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been infringed as a result of the amount of expropriation compensation paid under Law no. 359 of 1992.   The Court reiterated that Italy’s position regarding delays in the administration of justice had not changed sufficiently to call into question the conclusion that the accumulation of breaches constituted a practice that was incompatible with the Convention. The fact that the “Pinto” proceedings, examined as a whole, had not caused the applicants to lose their “victim” status constituted an aggravating circumstance regarding a breach of Article 6 § 1 for exceeding the reasonable time. Observing that the length of the proceedings in question was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court considered that the interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been provided for by law and pursued an aim in the public interest. As to whether it had been proportionate, the Court noted that the compensation awarded to the applicants, which had been calculated on the basis of the criteria laid down by Law no. 359 of 1992, had been substantially below the market value of the land in question, and that there had been no justification for that on public-interest grounds. A disproportionate and excessive burden had therefore been placed on the applicants, which could not be justified by any legitimate public-interest aim pursued by the authorities. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 600,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 24,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 25,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 8 Cabała v. Poland (no. 23042/02) Cegłowski v. Poland (no. 3489/03) The applicants, Krzysztof Cabała and Krzysztof Cegłowski, are Polish nationals who were born in 1951 and 1969, respectively. Mr Cabała lives in Siemianowice (Poland) and Mr   Cegłowski lives in Lubin (Poland).   Both applicants were arrested in August 2000 on suspicion of having committed serious criminal offences, attempted murder in the case of Mr Cabała and robbery in Mr Cegłowski’s case. Despite their appeals for release, the courts extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention several times on identical grounds; the reasonable suspicion that they had committed the crime, the gravity of the charges and the severity of anticipated penalty. In 2004 both applicants were convicted as charged and were given prison sentences. Both applicants were detained for over two-and-a-half years.   While they were detained, their correspondence with the Court was opened by the authorities. As a consequence, the delivery of some of Mr Cegłowski’s letters was significantly delayed.     The applicants complained, in particular, about the excessive length of their detention on remand and about the censorship of their correspondence during that time relying on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court found that the grounds on which the courts relied to prolong the applicants’ detention may have been valid initially but could not be used to justify keeping the applicants in custody for the entire periods in question. Furthermore, it also noted that the authorities never envisaged the possibility of imposing other preventive measures on the applicants to ensure their appearance at trial, such as bail or police supervision, as they were obliged to do under Polish law. The Court therefore concluded that the grounds given by the domestic authorities were not “relevant” and “sufficient” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   With regard to the censorship issue, the Court held that as long as the Polish authorities continued to mark detainees’ letters with a “censored” stamp, it had no alternative but to presume that those letters had been opened and read. Moreover, some of the letters sent to the Court had been significantly delayed. The Court held that it followed that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence and that that censorship was contrary to the domestic law. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court awarded Mr   Cabała EUR   2,000 and Mr Cegłowski EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   D.A. and B.Y. v. Turkey (no. 45736/99)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, D.A. and B.Y., are Turkish nationals who were born in 1953 and 1968 respectively. At the time the application was lodged, they were in İzmir Prison (Turkey).   The applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on 17 July 1998 as part of a police operation against the “Organisation for the Restructuring of the Communist Party” ( Komünist Parti İnşa Örgütü ), an extreme left-wing armed organisation. They each underwent a medical examination which found no marks consistent with assault. When the applicants’ police custody ended, on 23 July 1998, three medical reports were prepared on each of them, none of which noted any unusual injuries. The applicants were then placed in detention pending trial and were charged with membership of an armed gang.   Two complaints lodged by the applicants alleging torture resulted in findings that there was no case to answer.   The applicants complained that they had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) while in police custody. In addition, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they complained of the length of their detention in police custody.   In the absence of any evidence that the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment, the Court declared the complaint under Article 3 inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.   The Court noted that the applicants had spent seven days in police custody. It could not accept that it had been necessary to detain the applicants for so long before they were brought before a judge. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It awarded the applicants EUR 1,500 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 each for costs and expenses, less the EUR 630 already received by D.A. from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dağ v. Turkey (no. 74939/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, İsmet Dağ, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Turkey.   On 23 September 1994 the applicant was taken into custody within the context of a police operation against the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) and was later charged with forging and using an identification card. On 26 February 2003 the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred.   The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted eight years and five months. Having regard to the circumstances of the 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 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 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) Ermicev v. Moldova (no. 42288/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Alexandru Ermicev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1960 and lives in Chişinău (Moldova).   The applicant complained that a final judgment in his favour regarding a property transaction was quashed. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 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.   As a result, the applicant had had to endure legal uncertainty for a long period after the final judgment was quashed. 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 therefore held, unanimously, that the setting aside of the judgment in supervisory review proceedings violated Article 6 § 1.   The Court recalled that the sums awarded to the applicant by the judgment in question could be considered a possession. Quashing the judgment after it had become final therefore constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession.     There being no public interest defence justifying that interference, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   The applicant was awarded EUR 29,000 which represents the market value of the apartment, EUR 2,465 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Mahmut Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 47278/99) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants are seven Turkish nationals: Mahmut Yılmaz, Özgür Tüfekçi, Ahmet Aşkın Doğan, Bülent Karakaş, Elif Kahyaoğlu, Deniz Kartal and Nurdan Bayşahan were born in 1973, 1975, 1970, 1975, 1974, 1975 and 1973 respectively. At the time of the events, they all lived in Ankara.   The applicants were arrested between 17 and 19 April 1996 on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, and were taken into police custody. On 1 May 1996 they each underwent a medical examination which did not disclose any marks consistent with assault. They were then brought before a judge who ordered that they be placed in detention pending trial. They underwent several subsequent medical examinations, which did not reveal any unusual injuries. On 9 November 1998 Ankara State Security Court sentenced the applicants to terms of imprisonment.   The applicants contended that they had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) while in police custody. In addition, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complained that the proceedings against them had been unfair on account, in particular, of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court.   In the absence of any evidence that the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment, and even assuming that they had exhausted domestic remedies, the Court declared the complaint under Article 3 inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.   The Court reiterated that civilians who were required to answer criminal charges in a state security court that included a military judge on its bench had legitimate grounds for concern about its independence and impartiality. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to the other complaints of procedural unfairness, the Court stated that a court which had been found not to be independent and impartial could not, under any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial for persons within its jurisdiction. Consequently, it held that it was unnecessary to examine those other complaints.   The Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sitarski v. Poland (no. 71068/01) Mustafa Türkoğlu v. Turkey (no. 58922/00)   ***   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.