CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCE7A8313 { width:56.11pt; display:inline-block } .s96DBCBA4 { width:94.8pt; display:inline-block } .s99229C01 { width:164.82pt; display:inline-block } .sC05FF814 { width:134.8pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s614F8F44 { width:158.18pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sFA3838FF { width:144.78pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9743D5FD { width:49.46pt; display:inline-block } .s49832E2 { width:240.22pt; display:inline-block } .s65FB1199 { width:16.75pt; display:inline-block } .sB4F2045A { width:18.82pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   553 3.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments, none of which 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.     Achache v. France (application no 16043/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Cyril Achache and his wife Christine Achache, are French nationals who were born in 1961 and 1962 respectively and live in Paris.   On 12 April 1996 the applicants instituted proceedings against BNP (Banque Nationale de Paris), which had given them a housing loan in 1989, seeking a declaration that the bank was not entitled to the interest on the loan and applying for recovery of the sum they had paid, on the ground that the repayments table had not been enclosed with the loan proposal. The same day Parliament enacted Law no. 96-314 laying down a number of economic and financial provisions. Section 87-1 of the Law amended, with retrospective effect, the provisions of the Consumer Code governing loan proposals.   The Nanterre tribunal de grande instance gave judgment in the applicants’ favour and made an interim award requiring BNP to pay them 876,445.15 French francs (almost 133,613 euros (EUR)). However, applying Law no. 96-314, the Versailles Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 21 November 1999, rejected the applicants’ request for repayment of interest. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   The applicants maintained that the retrospective application of the Law of 12   April 1996 had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the Law of 12 April 1996 had entailed an interference with the applicants’ exercise of the rights they could previously have asserted by virtue of the legislation and case-law then applicable, and accordingly with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The measure had placed an “abnormal and excessive burden” on the applicants and the interference with their possessions had been disproportionate. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicants EUR 135,000 in respect of pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 9,415 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ben Naceur v. France (no. 63879/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Laïfa Ben Naceur, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1951. He is currently in Muret Prison in France, having been sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking.   On 22 February 1999 Lyons Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment and imposed a permanent exclusion order on him for drug trafficking, classifying him as a re-offender. Neither the applicant nor the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment within the ten days permitted under Article 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   However, at the request of the prosecutor, the principal public prosecutor lodged an appeal on 16 March 1999 under Article 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the principal public prosecutor two months from the date of delivery of the criminal court judgment in which to lodge an appeal.   On 1 July 1999 the Lyons Court of Appeal upheld the exclusion order in respect of the applicant and increased his prison sentence to 12 years. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   The applicant alleged that the longer time allowed to the principal prosecutor for lodging an appeal against a criminal court judgment and the impossibility of lodging a cross ‑ appeal in such situations infringed the principle of equality of arms for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court found that the fact that the prosecution had a longer period in which to lodge an appeal, combined with the impossibility for the applicant to lodge a cross-appeal, had placed the latter at a clear disadvantage compared with the prosecuting authorities, in breach of the principle of equality of arms. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Cour v. France (no. 44404/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Martine Cour, is a French national who was born in 1953 and lives in Montbéliard (France).   In 1986 the applicant stood guarantor for a loan taken out by her husband with CCF (Crédit Commercial de France). When her husband was unable to repay the loan to CCF for health reasons, the latter brought a court action against the applicant. On 27 March 1998 Besançon Court of Appeal upheld the judgment ordering Mrs Cour to pay CCF the equivalent of EUR   43,598. The applicant appealed against the judgment on points of law.   By an order of 17 November 1999 her appeal was removed from the Court of Cassation’s list under Article 1009-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that she had not complied with the order made by the Court of Appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleged that the removal of her appeal from the list had infringed her right of access to a court.   The Court observed that the order for the removal of the appeal from the list had been made on the ground that the applicant had failed to show that she had taken any steps demonstrating her intention to comply with the Court of Appeal’s decision and had not alleged the existence of any circumstances giving rise to a danger or presumption of manifestly unreasonable consequences in the event of compliance. However, the Court noted that at no point during the proceedings in issue had the applicant, who was responsible for her husband’s upkeep and received only a small average monthly salary, been in a position to pay the full amount ordered by the court. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the decision to remove the applicant’s appeal from the Court of Cassation’s list had been disproportionate to the aims pursued, and her effective access to the higher court had been hindered as a result.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   E.T. v. France (no. 7217/05)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant is a French national who was born in 1982 and lives in Douvaine (France).   On 1 April 2004 the mayor of Thonon-les-Bains ordered the applicant’s committal to Thonon-les-Bains Hospital. The committal decision was upheld the following day by the prefect of Haute-Savoie, on the basis of a medical certificate. On 3 April 2004 the applicant applied to the liberties and detention judge ( juge des libertés et de la detention ) for immediate release.   In order to enable the applicant to continue her education, the prefect granted her a period of trial release on 15 April 2004. On 9 June 2004 the liberties and detention judge refused the applicant’s application for release. On 15 November 2004 the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had withdrawn her appeal as the confinement measure had been lifted in the meantime.   Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant contended in particular that her application for release had not been decided speedily.   The Court noted that, despite being released from hospital on a trial basis on 15 April 2004, the applicant had remained subject to the hospital order until 20 August 2004. Moreover, the judge had not appointed an expert until 12 days after the application for immediate release. Despite the fact that the hospital order was still in force, he had not taken a decision until 9   June 2004, that is, two months after the application had been made. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal had given its decision more than four-and-a-half months after the case had been brought before it.   As the decisions could therefore not be considered to have been taken “speedily”, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gajcsi v. Hungary (no. 34503/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 The applicant, László Gajcsi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in the Lad-Gyöngyöspuszta Social Home (Hungary).   In November 1999 the applicant was committed to hospital for compulsory psychiatric treatment under the Health Care Act. In January 2003 Nagyatád District Court reviewed his detention and prolonged his treatment for an indefinite period. The court based its decision on an opinion of an expert psychiatrist who referred to the applicant’s “pathological mental state”. Counsel for the applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   In May 2003 the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court. He argued that the reasoning of the District Court’s decision was insufficient and that the applicant had been denied a fair hearing. He pointed out that the reason relied on by the expert was not one of potential grounds for the applicant’s psychiatric confinement which were set out in the relevant Act. He stressed that the fairness of any proceedings which might result in coercive measures required detailed reasoning in the relevant decisions. He also argued that the failure to inform a patient of the reasons for his involuntary psychiatric treatment might amount to a violation under the European Convention of Human Rights.   The Supreme Court rejected his petition for review. Meanwhile, on 24 April 2003 the applicant was released from hospital.   The applicant complained, in particular, that his treatment was unjustified and that was not given reasons for his confinement. He relied on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that although the relevant domestic law required that compulsory hospitalisation and treatment had to be justified by a patient’s “dangerousness”, the domestic courts’ decisions did not assess the applicant’s alleged or potential “dangerous conduct”. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the prolongation of the applicant’s compulsory treatment was not prescribed by law.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and that there was no need to examine separately the further complaints made by the applicant. The Court awarded Mr Gajcsi EUR 7,350 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Łuczko v. Poland (no. 73988/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Janusz Łuczko, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Wydminy (Poland).   Between February 2000 and May 2003 the applicant was involved in three separate sets of criminal proceedings and was imprisoned.   While he was in prison, the applicant sent a number of letters to the Court. The letters were stamped “Judge” accompanied by an illegible signature. Most had been cut open and resealed with adhesive tape.   The applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his detention and convictions.   The Court decided, on its own initiative, to consider the case under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court observed that there was a reasonable likelihood that the applicant’s letters to the Court had been opened and their contents read.   It held   that censorship of the applicant’s letters to the Court was contrary to domestic law. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 concerning the monitoring of that correspondence. It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   It awarded Mr Łuczko EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Başkaya v. Turkey (no. 68234/01)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Fikret Başkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Ankara.   On 1 June 1999 the daily newspaper Özgür Bakiş published an article by the applicant which criticised the Turkish authorities’ handling of the Kurdish problem. The applicant was prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda and was sentenced on 13 June 2000 to, among other things, one year’s imprisonment. He lodged an unsuccessful appeal on points of law.   The applicant maintained that his criminal conviction amounted to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court referred to its finding in previous cases that the non-communication of Principal State Counsel’s opinion, in view of the nature of his submissions and of the defendant’s inability to make written observations in reply, entailed a breach of Article 6 § 1. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court further considered that the reasons given by the Turkish courts could not be regarded as sufficient in themselves to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Although certain passages of the articles painted a negative picture of the policies of the Turkish State, they did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising and did not amount to hate speech; that, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court concluded that the applicant’s conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and had accordingly not been “necessary in a democratic society”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 735 for pecuniary damage, EUR 7,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Karahanoğlu v. Turkey (no. 74341/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Mehmet Karahanoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul.   On 13 September 2000 a chimney fire broke out in the applicant’s restaurant. It transpired that the fire had been caused by a build-up of grease and soot in the chimney and was therefore the result of the applicant’s negligence.   On 14 November 2000 Beyoğlu Police Court ordered the applicant to pay a small fine of approximately EUR 40. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against that decision.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that no public hearing had been held in his case.   The Court noted that at no stage in the proceedings had the applicant been given a hearing before the Turkish courts; he had therefore had no opportunity to appear in person before the judges dealing with his case. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the present judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 2 Keklik and Others v. Turkey (no. 77388/01)   Violation of Articles 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 The applicants, Bülent Keklik, Zülfikar Özalp, Salih Özalp and Dilaver Özalp, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1970, 1942 and 1962 respectively and live in Muş (Turkey).   Following a tip-off from a suspected member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the applicants were arrested on 30 April 2001, with the exception of Bülent Keklik, who was arrested on 1 May 2001.   On 10 May 2001 the prosecuting authorities ordered the release of Bülent Keklik and Dilaver   Özalp; Salih Özalp and Zülfikar Özalp were remanded in custody by the judge. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants for aiding and being members of an illegal armed organisation. Salih Özalp and Zülfikar Özalp were detained until 18   September, when they were released.   On 6 June 2002 Van State Security Court acquitted the applicants.   The applicants complained that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty. They relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted first of all that the police had drawn up an arrest protocol which bore the applicants’ signatures and recorded the charges against them. The applicants had therefore been informed of the reasons for their arrest. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 2.   However, the Court noted that Salih Özalp, Zülfikar Özalp and   Dilaver   Özalp had spent ten days in police custody and Bülent Keklik nine days. It could not accept that there had been any need for the applicants to be detained for that length of time before they were brought before a judge. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Furthermore, the Court recalled that it had already held in a number of previous cases that, at the time of the events, the review by the Turkish courts of the lawfulness of detentions under Article 128 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Lastly, the Court noted that victims of detention that did not comply with the Convention did not have sufficiently certain rights to reparation under Turkish law. It consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded EUR 3,500 each for non-pecuniary damage to Salih Özalp,   Zülfikar Özalp and Dilaver Özalp and EUR 3,000 to Bülent Keklik. It also awarded the applicants EUR 1,500 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Courty and l’Association Liberté Information Santé v. France (no. 15114/02) The applicants are Roland Courty, a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in Buros (France), and the Association Liberté Information Santé (Association for Freedom of Information in Health Matters), which has its head office in Riom (France) and of which Mr   Courty is a member. They brought proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat challenging the lawfulness of a presidential order amending the Public Health Code.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained in particular of the participation of the Government Commissioner in the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat .   The Court reiterated that the participation of the Government Commissioner in the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat , whether “active” or “passive”, amounted to a violation of Article 6 § 1. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a breach of the Convention on that point. The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant s and awarded EUR   500 to Mr Courty and EUR 339.94 to the Association for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mehmet Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 6366/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Mehmet Kaplan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). He was the owner of land that was expropriated for the construction of the Birecik dam.   The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the delays in paying him additional expropriation compensation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 separately. 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 5,250 in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention. The remainder of the complaints in the Börcsök Bodor v. Hungary , Kalmár v. Hungary and Rybczyńscy v. Poland cases were declared inadmissible.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Börcsök Bodor v. Hungary (no. 14962/03) Kalmár v. Hungary (no. 32783/03) Rybczyńscy v. Poland (no. 3501/02) Kuril v. Slovakia (no. 63959/00)     ***   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.