CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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 } .s600543DD { width:87.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2257181D { width:128.16pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s34DE83B3 { width:55.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s3DCF6A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s5149219F { width:134.83pt; display:inline-block } .sFFCF97F6 { width:76.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9974E846 { width:111.47pt; display:inline-block } .s9AE72E9 { width:248.84pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { 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 } .sB30C44B0 { 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { 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 } .s546C9D04 { 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 } .s40B7A780 { 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 } .s4F2EDFF { 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 } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; 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   600 17.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Georgia, Poland 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.   No violation of Article 3 (torture) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Danelia v. Georgia (application no 68622/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, David Danelia, is a Georgian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Tbilisi.   From April 1999 to October 2000 the applicant was working as a guard at the prison hospital in Tbilisi. On the night of 1 October 2000, while he was on duty, 12 convicts escaped. He was charged with serious professional negligence and given a two-year suspended prison sentence in 2001.   The applicant claimed that during his first three days in detention police officers tried to force him to confess to having helped the fugitives to escape in return for money. He described how they placed a gas mask over his face to smother his screams and subjected him to electric shock treatment. He maintained that each time he passed out with the pain they brought him round by throwing cold water at him and beating him on the soles of his feet.      The applicant complained that he had been tortured while in police custody. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights concluded unanimously that it was impossible to reach any conclusion as regards the allegations of torture, but held that there had been a violation of Article 3 and 13 concerning the lack of an effective investigation. The applicant was awarded 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gurgenidze v. Georgia (no. 71678/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, David Gurgenidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Tbilisi.   In 1999 the applicant put up for sale a manuscript by the renowned Georgian writer Konstantine Gamsakhurdia. Mrs Archvadze-Gamsakhurdia, daughter-in-law of the writer and wife of Mr   Gamsakhurdia, a former President of Georgia, now deceased, arranged to meet the applicant accompanied by a journalist from the national newspaper Akhali Taoba . The meeting was followed up by a series of articles and interviews, published with a photograph of the applicant, in which Mrs Archvadze-Gamsakhurdia accused him of having stolen the manuscript in question.   The applicant complained that the information and his photograph, which had been published in the newspaper Akhali Taoba , and also the decisions of the Georgian courts in the matter, had violated his right to respect for his private life. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and considered that no separate issue arose under Article 13. It awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 2,116 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Andrzejewski v. Poland (no. 72999/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Henryk Andrzejewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Łódź (Poland). In 1990 the applicant, who at the time was in charge of public funds to be used for the building of a major children’s clinic, was prosecuted for misappropriation and fraud. In October 2000 he was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Gąsiorowski v. Poland (no. 7677/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Robert Gąsiorowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Warsaw.   In December 1999 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. In June 2002 he was convicted of attempted armed robbery and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The conviction was quashed in December 2002 and he was released in February 2004.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand and that during his detention his correspondence was censored by the authorities. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 8 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Piątkowski v. Poland (no. 5650/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Sylwester Piątkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Koluszki (Poland).   Between 1991 and 1993 he was the Head of the Civic Gasification Committee of the “Łódzkie” housing co-operative. In October 1995 he was charged with concealing documents belonging to the committee. In November 1996 he was found guilty, fined and put on probation for a year. His final appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2001.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Stankiewicz v. Poland (no. 29386/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Leszek Stankiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Poręba-Kocęby (Poland).   In August 2001 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of committing armed attacks on lorry drivers. In May 2005 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained in particular of the length of his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Öz and Başpınar v. Turkey (no. 41227/02) Yazganoğlu v. Turkey (no. 57294/00)   In these two cases the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation. They also alleged that the sums they had been paid did not take account of the real rate of inflation between the time when the amounts had been determined and the date of payment. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in Öz and Başpınar also relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   In both these cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It considered that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 made by the applicants in Öz and Başpınar . The Court awarded the applicants the overall sums set out below, expressed in euros. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Öz and Başpınar v. Turkey 5,000 750 750 Yazganoğlu v. Turkey 21,483 - 600     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Augustyniak v. Poland (no. 5413/02) Chodzyńscy v. Poland (no. 17484/02 Czerwiński v. Poland (no. 10384/02) Grabiński v. Poland (no. 43702/02) Kwiatkowski v. Poland (no. 4560/04) Nowak v. Poland (no. 8612/02) Zielonka v. Poland (no. 7313/02)   ***   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.