CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 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 } .s212A614E { width:80.09pt; display:inline-block } .sBEE74AEB { width:88.79pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s5813FB4B { width:52.82pt; display:inline-block } .s26D56545 { width:100.8pt; display:inline-block } .s9420EBC3 { width:32.6pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6A14C109 { width:143.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA871931F { width:70.85pt; display:inline-block } .sF810599F { width:90.81pt; 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   71 30.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight 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.     Ryckie v. Poland (application no. 19583/05)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Piotr Ryckie, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Gdansk.   The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention, relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Finding that the period to be taken into consideration had lasted five years, four months and 26 days, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Pavlík v. Slovakia (no. 74827/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Dušan Pavlík, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Zvolen (Slovakia).   He complained in particular about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Finding that the period to be taken into consideration had lasted more than two years and nine months, he Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Çobanoğlu and Budak v. Turkey (no. 45977/99)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Lokman Çobanoğlu and Ferhat Budak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977 and live in Hakkari (Turkey).   In March 1994 they were arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having hidden members of the illegal organisation PKK. In December 1999 they were sentenced to prison terms of 16 years and 8 months, those sentences being upheld by the Court of Cassation in October 2000.   The applicants complained, under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of their pre-trial detention (some five years and eight months) and of the criminal proceedings against them (some six years and seven months).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1. As the applicants had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that no award should be made to them under that head. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ekinci and Akalın v. Turkey (no. 77097/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicants, Esmahan Ekinci and Fatime Akalın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1957 and 1968 respectively. When they lodged their application they were detained in Niğde prison (Turkey).   In November 1998, while they were serving a prison sentence for belonging to a terrorist organisation, the applicants were charged with rebellion against the prison administration; however, those proceedings were discontinued. They were subsequently also charged with having taken part in an uprising of prisoners, and those proceedings are still pending. The applicants sent a number of letters to their lawyer which the prison authorities failed to send on.   The applicants complained, in particular under Articles 8 (right to respect for one’s correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), of their inability to correspond with their lawyer.   The Court reiterated that correspondence with one’s lawyer, regardless of its purpose, was privileged under Article 8 of the Convention. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and found that it did not need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13. The Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 jointly for costs and expenses, less the EUR 715 already received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Non violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment) Kazım Gündoğan v. Turkey (no. 29/02)     Violation of Article 3 (investigation) The applicant, Kazım Gündoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Tekirdağ (Turkey).   Following a law-enforcement operation in various remand prisons, the applicant, who had been detained in the   Üsküdar E-type prison, was transferred to the Tekirdağ F-type prison in February 2001. On his arrival, he underwent a medical examination which revealed no signs of injury on his body.   The applicant filed a complaint against the administration of the remand prison for inhuman and degrading treatment, torture and breach of constitutional rights. He stated in particular that he had been subjected to falaka (beating of the soles of the feet) and asked to be examined by a doctor. He underwent two medical examinations in March 2001: the first revealed sensitivity and muscular pain on the left side, and the second revealed no signs of assault. The public prosecutor ordered the proceedings to be discontinued in March 2001, a decision that was confirmed by the president of the Assize Court in May 2001.   The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated and complained of the lack of an effective investigation concerning his allegations under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court found that there was nothing in the evidence before it to support the applicant’s allegation that he had been ill-treated. Consequently, it could not establish beyond all reasonable doubt that he had been subjected to treatment that was serious enough to fall within the scope of Article 3 and thus held unanimously that there had been no violation of the Convention under that head.   In addition, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the absence of an effective official investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. It found that it did not need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   It awarded EUR 5,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   In the following case 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 Aslan and Özsoy v. Turkey (nos. 35973/02 and 5317/02)   The applicants, Refik Aslan and Ali Fuat Özsoy, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1965 and 1936 respectively and live in Hatay (Turkey).   They complained that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court awarded EUR   60,000 to Mr   Aslan and EUR   90,000 to Mr Özsoy in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000, jointly, 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.   Boczoń v. Poland (no. 66079/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Pielasa v. Poland (no. 66463/01)   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.