CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 février 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 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC231E31 { width:74.76pt; display:inline-block } .s928910E5 { width:150.15pt; display:inline-block } .sB2EB289F { width:134.15pt; display:inline-block } .sC8D11E40 { width:68.8pt; display:inline-block } .s105B2343 { width:85.45pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s34739FF7 { width:26.15pt; display:inline-block } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sC10173EF { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s3D964D38 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   83 6.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Moldova, Poland, Sweden, Turkey and   United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments 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 5 § 3 Garycki v. Poland (application no. 14348/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Grzegorz Garycki, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Sosnowiec (Poland). He was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment by Katowice Regional Court following his conviction on two counts of robbery and 14 counts of burglary.   In that connection, the applicant alleged that the length (two years and nearly 11 months) of his pre-trial detention had been excessive in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also relied on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention complaining that the Court of Appeal, in the grounds for its decision to prolong his detention, stated that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. He also complained that correspondence addressed to him by the Court had been censored by the authorities in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and of Article 6 § 2, finding that, “irrespective of the outcome of prosecution”, there could be no justification for giving a clear judicial declaration as to the applicant’s guilt before he was proved guilty. The remainder of the application under Article 8 was found to have been introduced out of time and was declared inadmissible.   The Court also held that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded Mr Garycki 1,650 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Najdecki v. Poland (no. 62323/00)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Zygmunt Najdecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Miłkowice (Poland). He was convicted on several counts of fraud and forgery and for participation in an organised criminal gang and sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.   In that connection the applicant alleged that the length (approximately three years and eight months) of his pre-trial detention had been excessive in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). He also complained that his correspondence with his defence counsel had been censored in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), sending evidence to the Court by way of a fragment of an envelope belonging to a letter which his lawyer had sent him at the detention centre and which bore the official stamp “Censored, Legnica on 06.08.2001”.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 in that, as long as the Polish authorities continued the practice of stamping “censored” on detainees’ letters, the Court would have no alternative but to presume that those letters had been opened and read, and, in that section 73 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting censorship of a detained suspect’s correspondence with his counsel 14 days after the date of arrest, had not been respected, the applicant having been arrested on 26 May 1998.   The applicant was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kwiatek v. Poland (no. 20204/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Dariusz Kwiatek, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Dąbrowa Górnicza (Poland).   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained about the excessive length (two years, nine months and 18 days) of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of committing two burglaries. He was later convicted for one burglary and sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make an award in that connection. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Menteş v. Turkey (no. 36487/02)   Two violations of Article 6 (fairness) The applicant, Güler Menteş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). She is the chair of the provincial branch for women of the HADEP (People’s Democracy Party).   In August 2000 she was charged with aiding and abetting the cause of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). She was accused of having organised and taken part in an illegal demonstration to protest about the death sentence imposed on the PKK leader, of having taken part in protests against F-type prisons and of having made statements to the press concerning Abdullah Öcalan. In June 2001 the applicant was sentenced by a state security court to a prison term of three years and nine months. The Court of Cassation upheld her conviction and sentence in March 2002.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), that the proceedings before the state security court had been unfair as it had not taken evidence properly and witnesses for the prosecution had not been examined at the trial. She further alleged that she had not received the submissions of Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d), on account of the restriction of the applicant’s defence rights and the failure to notify her of Principal State Counsel’s submissions. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded her EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Sümer v. Turkey (no. 27158/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Cemal Sümer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   In March 2002 the applicant was sentenced by Izmir Magistrate’s Court to pay a fine of about EUR 180, following a complaint by his bank that he had issued a cheque without sufficient funds. He appealed unsuccessfully against that sentence before the higher criminal court.   The applicant alleged that he had not been given a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) as the Turkish courts which ruled on his case had not held hearings.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as the applicant had not had a public hearing before the courts dealing with his case. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for 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) Avramenko v. Moldova (no. 29808/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Valeriu Avramenko, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bălţi (Moldova).   The applicant complained that a judgment of 26 June 2002 ordering compensation for shares he had bought in a state-owned transport company, the purchase having been annulled by Bălţi District Court, had not been enforced for a period of approximately 21 months. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) 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 on account of the late enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment, and that the question of the application of Article 41 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was not ready for decision. The Court awarded Mr Avramenko EUR   600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Friendly settlement Corcoran and Others v. United Kingdom (nos. 60525/00, 63464/00 and 63469/00) Davis and Others v. United Kingdom (nos. 60946/00, 60978/00, 61933/00 and 61408/00) Hart and Others v. United Kingdom (nos. 61019/00, 61394/00, 61398/00, 63471/00 and 63481/00) The 12 applicants are all United Kingdom nationals who complained that, because they were men, they had been denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows. They relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which a total of 103,268.64   pounds sterling (GBP) (approximately EUR 156,762) is to be paid to the applicants: sums ranging from GBP 4,180.22 (approximately EUR 6,346) to GBP 12,254.99 (approximately EUR 18,603). (The judgments are available only in English)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Wassdahl v. Sweden (no. 36619/03) Kadriye Sülün v. Turkey (no. 33158/03)   ***   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 Convention.