CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 janvier 2007

.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 } .s1F555134 { width:84.77pt; display:inline-block } .s4E98F679 { width:87.49pt; display:inline-block } .sBD242766 { width:63.47pt; display:inline-block } .sCE6CD7A5 { width:102.83pt; display:inline-block } .s92660F31 { width:88.78pt; display:inline-block } .s486A7C84 { width:262.88pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s146D2459 { width:312.91pt; display:inline-block } .sE0654843 { width:104.07pt; display:inline-block } .sDF2719B0 { width:90.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBAE80944 { width:121.48pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s51C4CFB0 { width:200.25pt; display:inline-block } .sAB3CDBE7 { width:242.22pt; display:inline-block } .s6051026B { width:94.84pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sE6BC5077 { width:32.8pt; display:inline-block } .sBC11C5BD { width:84.18pt; 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   57 23.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Poland, Sweden and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment 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.     Cretello v. France (application no 2078/04)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Charles Cretello, is a French national who was born in 1952 and is currently imprisoned in Mulhouse Prison (France).   Reying on Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to liberty and security), he complained of the length of time he had been detained pending trial, five years and nine days.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Jagiełło v. Poland (no. 59738/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, January Jagiełło, is a Polish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Warsaw.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings (nine years and two months for two levels of jurisdiction) and awarded the applicant EUR 4,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 120 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)       Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 23779/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Antoni Kozłowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Niechorze (Poland).   He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that, on account of the excessive court fees required to proceed with his claim, he had been deprived of access to a court.   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Lilja v. Sweden (no. 36689/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Lasse Lilja, is a Swedish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Norsborg (Sweden).   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 concerning the length of criminal proceedings (seven years and five months for one level of jurisdiction) and tax proceedings (five years and ten months for three levels of jurisdiction) and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Çardakçı and Others v. Turkey (no. 39224/98)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Nafiye Çardakçı, Saniye Çardakçı, Atifet Çardakçı and Harun Çardakçı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1950, 1974, 1977 and 1978 respectively and live in Hakkari (Turkey).   They relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) on account of the death of Sabri Çardakçı and the burning of their home.   The Court decided to strike the case out of its list following a friendly settlement, under the terms of which the applicants are to receive EUR 20,000. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Çetinkaya and Çağlayan v. Turkey (nos. 3921/02, 35003/02 and 17261/03) The applicants, Fahriye Çetinkaya and Akın Çağlayan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1978 and 1980 respectively, and live in Istanbul.   They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 5 §§ 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 concerning the length of detention in police custody (six days without judicial intervention) and Article 5 § 5 concerning the lack of a right to compensation under domestic law. The applicants were awarded EUR 1,000, each, for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500, jointly, for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   No violation of Article 10 Falakaoğlu and Saygılı v. Turkey (nos. 22147/02 and 24972/03)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Falakaoğlu v. Turkey (No. 3) (no. 16229/03)   Violation of Article 10 The applicants, Bülent Falakaoğlu and Fevzi Saygılı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1966 respectively and live in Istanbul. At the material time Bülent Falakaoğlu was the editor of the daily newspaper Yeni Evrensel (New Universality) and Fevzi Saygılı was its owner.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that they had not been provided with a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. They further submitted, under Article 10, that their criminal convictions and the temporary closures of their paper had infringed their right to freedom of expression.   The Court held that there had been violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 10. It awarded Bülent Falakaoğlu EUR 2,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. In the case of Falakaoğlu and Saygılı the Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Kepeneklioğlu v. Turkey (no 73520/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Adem Kepeneklioğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Adana (Turkey).   He alleged that there had been an infringement of his right to respect for his correspondence as set forth in Article 8 on account of the censorship of a letter he had sent to his lawyer in March 2001.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded him EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses, less EUR 715 he had already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kondu v. Turkey (no. 75694/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Mahfuz Kondu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Batman (Turkey).   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained of the anxiety he had suffered throughout criminal proceedings against him and of the fact that he had been placed during his pre-trial detention in a prison for adults instead of a juvenile offender institution. He further alleged, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that the state security court which had tried and sentenced him had not been an “independent and impartial tribunal” because one of its members was a military judge. In addition, he complained of the length of the criminal proceedings, seven years and four months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 and no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the allegations concerning the fairness of the proceedings. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for pecuniary and 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kahraman Korkmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 47354/99) Kurt and Others v. Turkey (no. 13932/03) The 31 applicants are all Turkish nationals.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained of delay in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation. In the case of Kurt and Others , the applicants also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the case of Kurt and Others it held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 77,500 for pecuniary damage. In the case of Kahraman Korkmaz and Others the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them the overall sum of EUR 83,260 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Kutbettin Baran v. Turkey (no. 46777/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Kutbettin Baran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   He relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of Istanbul State Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality and that it was not necessary to examine the remainder of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6. It held that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of administrative proceedings.   Rodoplu v. Turkey (no. 41665/02)   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.