CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 septembre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2CA8BEF5 { width:118.78pt; display:inline-block } .sE5E6DEB1 { width:143.51pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD58CC15C { width:62.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA4E2C280 { width:122.06pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s717A66B4 { width:246.27pt; display:inline-block } .s7CE27998 { width:97.48pt; display:inline-block } .s49832E2 { width:240.22pt; display:inline-block } .sD4EF1C66 { width:41.43pt; display:inline-block } .s2E3B64B6 { width:76.13pt; display:inline-block } .sB5E1FE81 { width:84.15pt; 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   519 19.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, including the first judgment against Serbia . None of the judgments are 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.     No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Maupas and Others v. France (application no 13844/02) The applicants are: Ginette and Fernand Maupas, two French nationals who were born in 1950 and 1946 respectively and live in Molinet (France), and the association for the protection and legal representation of those living along the route of the Centre-Europe-Atlantique trunk road (RCEA).   Mr and Mrs Maupas own a house and plots of land in Molinet. Their property was not initially concerned by the projected route of the RCEA, which passed through the municipality of Molinet. The applicants consequently did not appeal against the decision in which the scheme was declared to be in the public interest. However, after the public inquiry had closed, the route was altered so that it passed through the applicants’ land. They did not learn of this change until late 1997, by which time the deadline for appealing against the public-interest declaration had passed.   An expropriation order was issued in December 1998. In the meantime, the applicants had applied to the administrative courts to have the declaration set aside. Their applications were dismissed, in particular on the ground that the alteration to the route did not entail a substantial change to the underlying purpose of the scheme necessitating a fresh procedure for the adoption of a public-interest declaration.   The applicants were awarded compensation of approximately 371,000 French francs (equivalent to 56,500 euros (EUR)) for the expropriation.   The applicants complained that they had not had a real opportunity to challenge the public-interest justification of the road scheme forming the basis for the expropriation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The European Court of Human Rights declared the application admissible in respect of Mr and Mrs Maupas and their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1, and inadmissible in respect of the applicant association and the complaint under Article 8.   The Court observed, in particular, that in the context of their application to set aside the expropriation liability order the applicants had had the opportunity to seek judicial review of the decision on which the expropriation had been based   and thereby to prevent the transfer of their property where appropriate. Furthermore, the administrative courts had found against them after examining their application on the merits, and there were no grounds for asserting that the amount of compensation for the expropriation had not been reasonably in line with the value of their property. In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine the application under Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Matijašević v. Serbia (no. 23037/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Milija Matijašvić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence.   The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in May 2003 on suspicion of having committed murder and fraud. Novi Sad District Court extended his detention on remand. When giving reasons for its decision, the court stated that the applicant had actually committed the criminal offences for which he had been arrested. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the court’s decision had prejudged the outcome of his pending criminal case and breached his fundamental right to be presumed innocent. His appeal was rejected and he was found guilty of incitement to murder and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained that he had been declared guilty before his guilt had been proven. He relied on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention.   The Court found that the District Court pronounced the applicant guilty before his guilt was proven according to law and that the Supreme Court failed to rectify that “error” on appeal. It stated further that the fact that the applicant was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment did not negate the applicant’s initial right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 and that the finding of that violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may have suffered. (The judgment is available only in English.)   White v. Sweden (no. 42435/02)   No violation of Article 8 The applicant, Anthony White, is a British national who lives in Beira (Mozambique).   In September and October 1996, the two main evening newspapers in Sweden, Expressen and Aftonbladet , published a series of articles in which the applicant was accused of various criminal offences, including the murder Olof Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister, in 1986. The newspapers also reported statements of individuals who rejected the allegations made against the applicant, and published an interview with the applicant in which he denied any involvement in the alleged offences.   The applicant brought proceedings against the newspapers for defamation under the Freedom of Press Act and the Swedish Criminal Code.   Mr White was a well-known figure whose alleged illegal activities had already been the focus of media attention.   The District Court of Stockholm found that, although the passages at issue depicted the applicant as a criminal or a person with a reprehensible lifestyle, it was justifiable to publish the statements and pictures, given that there was considerable public interest in the allegations. It further considered that the newspapers had a reasonable basis for the published material and acquitted the editors. The Svea Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision.   The applicant complained that the courts had failed to provide due protection for his name and reputation. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court noted that, in the series of articles, the newspapers endeavoured to present an account of the various allegations made which was as balanced as possible and that the journalists acted in good faith. The Court also considered that the domestic courts made a thorough examination of the case and balanced the opposing interests involved.   The Court found that the courts were justified in finding that the public interest in publishing the information in question outweighed the applicant’s right to the protection of his reputation. Consequently, there had been no failure on the part of the Swedish State to afford adequate protection of the applicant’s rights and the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Çetin Ağdaş v. Turkey (no. 77331/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Çetin Ağdaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey).   He was arrested on 23 October 1998 on suspicion of being a member of the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party – Front) and was placed in pre-trial detention, where he remained until he was released on bail on 6 May 2002. During that time the applicant made several applications to be released, all of which were refused. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending in the Turkish courts.   The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of both his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court noted that the applicant had been kept in pre-trial detention for approximately three years and six months. The state security court had lawfully ordered the extension of the applicant’s detention at the end of each hearing in virtually identical, not to say stereotyped terms, referring to the nature of the offence concerned, the state of the evidence, the date of the detention and the risk of his absconding.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   As regards the criminal proceedings, which to date had lasted more than seven years and ten months in the court of first instance, the Court considered their length excessive. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000   for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and EUR 285   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kabasakal and Atar v. Turkey (nos. 70084/01 and 70085/01)   The applicants, Selim Kabasakal and Hasan Atar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1977 respectively. They were serving prison sentences in Ordu Prison at the time of their applications to the Court.   In November 1998 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody. They were later charged with being a member of the Devrimci Halk Partisi - Revolutionary Peoples’ Party, an illegal organisation in Turkey. In the initial hearings, a military judge sat as a member of Erzurum State Security Court. That judge was later replaced by a civilian judge.   In October 1999 the applicants were found guilty as charged and sentenced to 12 years and six months imprisonment. They appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Cassation.     The applicants complained that they were denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the trial court. They further submitted that a written opinion given by the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. They relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence).   The Court decided to consider their complaints from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1 alone.   The Court considered that the proceedings in which the military judge participated were of minor importance and that the replacement of the military judge before the end of the proceedings should have allayed the applicants’ concern about the trial court’s independence and impartiality and concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   As regards the non-communication to the applicants of the principal prosecutor’s observations before the Court of Cassation, the Court found, as it had done in similar previous cases, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 2 (right to life) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Sultan Karabulut v. Turkey (no. 45784/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Sultan Karabulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara. Her son, Özgür Kemal Karabulut, died in 1997.   The parties disagreed as to the facts of the case.   The applicant submitted that her son had been killed by gendarmes on 20 October 1997 while looking for a mechanic after the car in which he had been travelling with a friend had broken down on the Taşova industrial estate (Amasya).   The Turkish Government maintained, however, that Mr Karabulut had been in a vehicle whose occupants were suspected of having assisted an illegal organisation, the TKP/ML TIKKO (Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army). When confronted with a police blockade, the suspects had abandoned the car and fled on foot. T.G. had been arrested immediately but Mr Karabulut had opened fire on the police officers and had been shot dead while attempting to throw a hand grenade at the gendarmes.   The public prosecutor went to the scene of the incident straight away. An investigation was subsequently opened, in the course of which reports and sketches concerning the incident were produced by the gendarmes, photographs were taken and objects relating to the death were seized. An examination of the body revealed that the applicant’s son had received two bullets in the region of the left armpit and two others in the left leg. The doctor concluded that the death had resulted from the destruction of the left lung by a bullet that had caused cardiac and respiratory failure and considered that a full autopsy was unnecessary.   A criminal complaint lodged by the applicant in February 1998 resulted in a decision that the gendarmes in question had no case to answer.   The applicant complained under Article 2 (right to life) of the unnecessary use of lethal force by the security forces. She also submitted that no effective investigation had been carried out into the circumstances surrounding her son’s death. She further complained under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) that she had been denied an effective remedy.   Having regard to the evidence in its possession, the Court observed that it had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the security forces had intentionally killed the applicant’s son as she had asserted. As to whether the gendarmes had had the means to arrest him instead of killing him, the Court considered it reasonable to believe that they had thought it necessary to shoot in order to render the suspect physically incapable of using the grenade. It considered it desirable, however, that neutralising techniques, for example, should be widely available with a view to gradually limiting the use of methods that could cause death.   The Court considered that the use of lethal force in the present case had been absolutely necessary to defend any person from violence. In addition, it had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt that unnecessarily excessive force had been used. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 with regard to Mr Karabulut’s death.   As regards the investigation into the applicant’s son’s death, the Court noted that numerous investigative steps had been taken promptly. However, certain important measures had not been taken, such as obtaining statements from the gendarmes or looking for traces of powder on the deceased’s hands or fingerprints on the grenade. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 as regards the nature of the investigation carried out in the case.   Lastly, the Court considered that Turkey could not be said to have conducted an effective criminal investigation and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 2 Süleyman Erdem v. Turkey (no. 49574/99)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Süleyman Erdem, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973. At the material time he was a trader and lived in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested on 1 March 1999 in the course of an operation against an illegal armed organisation and was taken into police custody, where he remained until 9 March 1999. He was then placed in pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings were brought against him for assisting an armed gang. On 14 September 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted the applicant for lack of “sufficiently compelling evidence”.   The applicant submitted under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that his deprivation of liberty had been unlawful and complained of its length.   The Court first noted that it had already found that at the material time the review by the Turkish courts of the lawfulness of detention under Article 128 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had failed to meet the requirements of Article 5 § 4. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   As to the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest, the Court noted that he had been arrested and questioned in connection with, among other things, his links with another suspect in the context of the same police operation. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Court considered that the applicant could be regarded as having been arrested and detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1.   Furthermore, the Court considered that the questions put to the applicant while in police custody had contained fairly precise indications of the suspicions against him, and that there were no grounds to conclude\ that he had not been informed of the reasons of his arrest while it was being carried out. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 2.   Lastly, the Court noted that the applicant had been held in police custody for eight days. It could not accept that it had been necessary to detain him for so long before bringing him before a judge and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,250   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same finding as in similar cases raising the same issue under the Convention:   Vuillemin v. France (no. 3211/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Claude Vuillemin, is a French national who was born in 1942 and lives in Soye (France). In 1996 he lodged a criminal complaint against his wife, alleging theft, and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. He appealed to the Court of Cassation in the course of the criminal proceedings.   The applicant complained that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation had been unfair in that he had not been sent a copy of the reporting judge’s report which had been sent to the advocate general. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Reiterating that the imbalance created by the failure to communicate the report to the accused’s lawyer on exactly the same terms was not consistent with the requirements of a fair hearing, the Court 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 sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   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). The applicant’s further complaint under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) was declared inadmissible.   Lubina v. Slovakia (no. 77688/01)   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.