CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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 } .sB2D8D6E6 { width:214.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .s24DC6347 { width:90.8pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s58BCEB62 { width:122.16pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61CB0487 { width:46.17pt; display:inline-block } .sA5453EBC { width:64.12pt; display:inline-block } .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   650 31.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 Chamber judgments, none of which 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.     Violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary (application no. 41463/02) The applicants, Károly András Földes and Anna Földesné Hajlik, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1958 respectively and live in Miskolc (Hungary).   The applicants, then a married couple, were charged with fraudulent bankruptcy. Criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Földes and he was interrogated as a suspect in November 1993. The proceedings were later extended to include Anna Földesné Hajlik. On 17 January 1994 the Passport Office of the Ministry of the Interior withdrew Mr Földes’ passport until the termination of the criminal proceedings in order to secure his availability for justice. That decision was later upheld on appeal by Budapest Regional Court on 9 May 1995. The applicants were convicted on 8 June 2006.   Mr Földes complained about the withdrawal of his passport for over a decade. He relied on Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the Convention. Both applicants complained about the length of the criminal proceedings. They rely on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the prohibition against Mr Földes leaving the country was never re-examined after 9 May 1995 and remained unaltered for over ten years at least, i.e. until 1 May 2004 when the possibility of travelling within the European Union with a national identity card became available. Consequently the Court found that the travel ban was effectively an automatic, blanket measure of indefinite duration and, as such, ran contrary to the authorities' duty to take appropriate care that any interference with the right to leave one's country should be justified and proportionate.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 and awarded Mr   Földes 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Stenka v. Poland (no. 3675/03) Zborowski v. Poland (no. 13532/03) The applicants are Polish nationals.   Krzysztof Stenka was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Potulice Prison (Poland). He was arrested on 15 October 1998 on suspicion of having committed several armed robberies against banks as part of a gang; on 22   October 2003 he was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment.   Mirosław Zborowski , who was born in 1958 and lives in Szamotuły (Poland), was arrested on 18   January 2001 on suspicion of having committed 12 offences in the course of his work as a legal adviser; he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment on 23 April 2004.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the length of their pre-trial detention.      The Court noted that the applicants had been held in pre-trial detention for a total period of more than four years and one month in the case of Mr Stenka and about three years and three months in the case of Mr Zborowski. In the Court’s opinion, the reasons put forward by the Polish authorities were insufficient to justify keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention for such long periods. The Court therefore found, unanimously in both cases, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court awarded Mr Stenka EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 622 for costs and expenses; it awarded Mr Zborowski EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,400 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Aksoy (Eroğlu) v. Turkey (no. 59741/00) Güner Çorum v. Turkey (no. 59739/00) Kahraman v. Turkey (no. 60366/00) The applicants, Şenay Aksoy (Eroğlu), Gülay Güner Çorum and Nazan Kahraman, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1970 and 1974 respectively and live in Ankara.   All three began working as nurses for the army, posts that carried civil servant status. In April 1999, following a disciplinary investigation, the Senior Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of National Defence decided to dismiss the applicants, as sympathisers of an illegal organisation, for creating disorder in their establishment by conducting ideological and political activities.   The applicants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Military Administrative Court. When filing its submissions, the Ministry of Defence sent the case file concerning the administrative investigation to that court in a separate envelope, in accordance with Article 52 of Law no. 1602; the applicants did not receive a copy. In 2000 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal on the basis of information and documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence in an envelope marked “secret” and the statements obtained during the administrative investigations. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged the refusal to disclose the investigation files.   Relying on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants alleged that the failure to communicate the documents from the case file on which the Supreme Military Administrative Court based its decision had breached the principle of equality of arms. In addition, they alleged that their dismissal had entailed a violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).   The Court noted, in particular, that the disputed decisions had been taken on the sole basis of the investigation files, which had been classified as “secret”, and that those files had therefore been of crucial importance for the outcome of the proceedings. Bearing in mind what was at stake in the proceedings and the nature of the documents and information contained in the investigation file, the fact that it was impossible for the applicants to respond to them prior to delivery of judgment by the Supreme Court had violated their right to a fair trial. The Court therefore concluded, unanimously in the three cases, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 10.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 715   already received by Ms Kahraman in legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gürsoy and Others v. Turkey (nos. 1827/02, 1842/02, 1846/02, 1850/02, 1857/02, 1859/02         and 1862/02) The seven applicants, Cemalettin Gürsoy, Veli Çelik, Mahir Öz, Hıdır   Açıkel, Abdullah Önal, Zeki Demirçivi and Orhan Özelmalı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1969, 1960 and 1976 respectively. At the material time they lived in Adana (Turkey).   On 14 July 1998 Adana State Security Court, composed of three professional judges, one of whom was a military judge, convicted the applicants of belonging to an illegal organisation and sentenced them to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the unfairness and length (two years and three months, and three years and five months, according to the applicants) of the criminal proceedings which had resulted in their conviction.     The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 with regard to the complaint based on the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court, and no violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to the length of the criminal proceedings.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them EUR 2,200 jointly for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Pakkan v. Turkey (no. 13017/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Muammer Pakkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and is currently detained on remand in Edirne F-type Prison.   On 28 November 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate and was later charged with being a member of an illegal left-wing organisation. He was detained on remand until 27 October 2004 when he was sentenced to life imprisonment. That judgment was quashed on 13 July 2005 and the applicant is still in detention on remand pending the new proceedings.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand which lasted almost 13 years.   He also complained about the length of the proceedings and the presence of a military judge on the bench of Istanbul State Security Court which initially tried him. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the length of Mr Pakkan’s detention pending trial and a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Şahin and Sürgeç v. Turkey (nos. 13007/02 and 13924/02) Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, İbrahim Şahin and Erdoğan Sürgeç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1973 respectively and were detained in Malatya Prison at the time of the lodging of their applications with the Court.   On 1 November 2001 the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of their involvement in the activities of the PKK. On 9 November 2001 Tunceli Magistrates’ Court ordered that they be remanded in custody.   The applicants alleged that they had not been brought promptly before a judge. They relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the failure to bring the applicants promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and awarded Mr Şahin and Mr Sürgeç EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Tüzel v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 71459/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Abdullah Levent Tüzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. He is president of the EMEP Labour Party.   In April 2001 the applicant was prohibited from disseminating a poster prepared by the party’s central committee, entitled “ İMF’siz Türkiye için emek programıyla 1 Mayıs’a ” (“Towards the 1st of May with the workforce’s programme, for a Turkey without the IMF”), on the ground that, given its provocative content, it was likely to result in disorder, disrupt public safety and spread violence.   The applicant submitted that that ban on displaying and disseminating his party’s posters in a region in which a state of emergency had been declared had amounted, among other things, to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). He also complained of a violation of Article 6 (right to a court).   The Court noted that the prohibition of disseminating the poster in question constituted an interference in the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. This interference was prescribed by law, namely Article 11 (e) of Law no. 2935 on the State of Emergency and Article 1 (a) of Decree Law no. 430, and pursued the aim of protecting territorial integrity.     The absence of judicial supervision with regard to administrative prohibition and publication had deprived the applicant of sufficient guarantees to prevent possible misuse of authority. Accordingly, the interference in question could not be considered “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Furthermore, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence in Turkish law of a remedy before a domestic court, by which the measures taken against the applicant by the Governor of the region in which the state of emergency had been declared could be challenged.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Drăguţă v. Moldova (no. 75975/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Valentina Drăguţă, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău.   The applicant complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of two judgments given in her favour which had violated her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded her EUR 10,724 for pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Karaoğlan v. Turkey (no. 60161/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Fikret Karaoğlan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Belgium.   In March 1998 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation.   The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of İzmir State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the lack of independence and impartiality of İzmir State Security Court. It further held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Karaoğlan and awarded him EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of civil proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bencze v. Hungary (no. 4578/03) Emesz v. Hungary (no. 36343/03) Gergely v. Hungary (no. 23364/03) Ščuryová v. Slovakia (no. 72019/01)   ***   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.