CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2F210075 { width:50.77pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s1E1B2CE7 { width:146.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7559D9B3 { width:110.16pt; display:inline-block } .s7E16EC6C { width:82.12pt; display:inline-block } .s32E5FD { width:96.78pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s150E3A1E { width:60.82pt; display:inline-block } .s56583728 { width:84.79pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .sB00DB636 { width:127.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7774D482 { width:92.83pt; display:inline-block } .s136C9C78 { width:108.83pt; 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   116 20.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Poland, and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Rucinski v. Poland (application no 33198/04)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Witold Ruciński, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Kielce (Poland).   Mr Ruciński was convicted and sentenced in July 2005 of a total of 24 offences (notably for forgery and fraud), most of them committed as a member of an organised criminal gang.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention, which lasted approximately two years and six months.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the persistent risk of collusion and unlawful obstruction of the proceedings as well as of the applicant going into hiding, justified holding him in custody for the relevant period. Furthermore, given the seriousness and the nature of the charges against the applicant, as well as the number of other accused persons (20), the relations between them, the number of witnesses (250) and the amount of evidence examined, the Court found that the resulting complexity of the case prolonged its examination and contributed to the length of the applicant’s detention on remand. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Benli v. Turkey (no. 65715/01)   No violation of Article 10 The applicant, Mustafa Benli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). At the relevant time, he was the owner and editor-in-chief of the political journals Hedef (The Target), Liseli Arkadaş (The High-School-Pupil Friend) and Alevi Halk Gerçeği (The Truth of the Alevi People).   In 1998 Ankara State Security Court sentenced the applicant to four years and six months’ imprisonment for assisting the TDP (Turkish Revolution Party – Türkiye Devrim Partisi ). In 1999 the Court of Cassation reclassified the offence as membership of an armed group. The case was remitted to the state security court, which sentenced the applicant to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   The applicant alleged that he had been convicted following an unfair trial, on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court. He also alleged that his conviction, in his capacity as editor-in-chief, had, among other things, entailed a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He relied, in particular, on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of Ankara State Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality and held that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints under Article 6.     The Court also considered that the applicant could not be said to have been convicted on account of the expression of his opinions or participation in meetings, but for his membership of an illegal organisation, classified as terrorist in nature by the Turkish courts. Thus, the question of interference with his right to freedom of expression did not arise. Accordingly, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had not been a violation of Article 10 and held that no separate question arose under Article 9.   The Court considered that its judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gürü Toprak v. Turkey (no. 39452/98)   No violation of Article 3 The applicant, Gürü Toprak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Siirt (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested by the police in May 1997, following an anonymous call denouncing him as a member of the PKK. The circumstances of his arrest and questioning are disputed by the parties.   According to the Turkish Government, officers in civilian clothing went to the applicant’s home on 19   May 1997 in order to arrest him. The applicant and his sons put up violent resistance to the police officers and wounded two of them, one with a knife. On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted superficial grazing on the left cheekbone and an injury on his right elbow. Grenades were seized following a confession by the applicant.   The applicant alleged that he had been attacked in the company of his three sons by individuals whose status as police officers had been unknown to him. He had then been “ill-treated” by his questioners in order to extract a confession, and he had therefore signed his confession under compulsion. On questioning, the applicant’s children stated, among other things, that their father had argued with the police officers who had come to arrest him; one of them also said that their father sometimes got worked up on account of his stomach problems.   On 12 December 1997 the applicant was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for membership of the PKK. He appealed unsuccessfully against his conviction.   The applicant alleged that he had been assaulted by the police during his arrest and detention in police custody. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court considered that, even supposing that the applicant had never attempted to wound the police officer, the description of the dispute given by the protagonists sufficed, in itself, to conclude that the force used to arrest him had not exceeded what was necessary on account of the applicant’s intemperate behaviour and militancy. He could not therefore complain of having been subjected to sufficiently serious treatment to fall within the scope of Article 3.   In addition, the case file did not point to any factual presumption against the Turkish police authorities concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in police custody. The Court considered that the applicant could not be said to have sufficiently brought his complaint to the attention of the judicial authorities.   Consequently, the Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to raise a reasonable suspicion that the police officers had inflicted disproportionate and/or prohibited treatment on the applicant on account of his political opinions, or to call into question the manner in which the judicial authorities had reacted to his allegations.   It therefore held, unanimously, that there had not been a violation of Article 3, taken in isolation or combined with Articles 13 and 14.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Oyman v. Turkey (no. 39856/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Ayşe Oyman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   In April 2002 the local office of the newspaper Yedinci Gündem , which was represented by the applicant, was searched. In June 2002 the applicant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, commuted to a fine, for having distributed the newspaper in spite of a ban. An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed.   The applicant alleged that she had not had a fair trial on account, among other things, of the fact that a hearing had not been held in her case, the fact that the indictment had not been served on her, and the impossibility of replying to the Prosecutor of the Republic’s opinion. She relied, in particular, on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s other complaints. It held that its judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded her EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 850 she had already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Özçelik v. Turkey (no. 56497/00)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Osman Özçelik, former Deputy Chairman of the pro-Kurdish HADEP (People’s Democratic Party), is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Ankara.   The application concerned Mr Özçelik’s arrest and detention in police custody on 21 July 1999 during the course of a police operation carried out by the security forces against the PKK . The applicant was questioned, in particular, about statements he made on several television programmes, broadcast on MED-TV, a pro-Kurdish channel and in which he had taken part in his capacity as Deputy Chairman of HADEP . In August 1999 he was charged with aiding and abetting members of the PKK on account of statements he had made during those television programmes. Finally, in June 2002, Ankara State Security Court, under Law no. 4616, decided to suspend criminal proceedings against the applicant, holding that, should he be convicted of a similar offence within five years of that decision, a final sentence would be imposed.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that there had been no reasonable suspicion for his arrest, that he had been held in police custody without being brought before a judge and that he had had no remedy under domestic law to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.   Taking into consideration that a search warrant had been issued against the applicant, that he had attempted to escape when police officers asked him for identification papers and that he had been arrested during the course of a police operation, the Court concluded that there had been a “reasonable suspicion” for arresting the applicant and rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 (c).   However, the Court could not accept that it had been necessary to detain the applicant for six days without him being brought before a judge, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of an effective remedy. The applicant was awarded EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Remzi Aydın v. Turkey (no. 30911/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Remzi Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Kocaeli Prison (Turkey).   The applicant, who was suspected of having carried out 43 terrorist acts on behalf of an illegal organisation, was arrested on 29 July 1998 while he was performing his military service. The proceedings are currently pending before Istanbul Assize Court. The applicant went on hunger strike while in detention.   The applicant alleged that his continued detention, in spite of his state of health, had amounted to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the length of his pre-trial detention, namely seven years and three months to date. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complained about the length of the proceedings brought against him, namely eight years and six months to date.     The Court declared the application admissible with regard to the complaints under Articles 5 and 6 and declared the remainder inadmissible, as manifestly ill-founded. It concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 2 (death) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) No violation of Article 14 Salgın v. Turkey (no. 46748/99) The applicant, Seyfeddin Salgın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Kızıltepe (Turkey). He is the father of İsa Salgın, who died in 1997, aged 25, while performing military service.   In June 1997 İsa Salgın travelled to the Akçay training barracks in İskenderun in order to carry out his military service. He was found dead in front of his guard post on 22   November 1997.   A criminal investigation was immediately opened, then an administrative investigation. As part of the investigations, witness statements were taken from other soldiers, who said that İsa had been noted for his irritable and even aggressive behaviour but had calmed down after the birth of his son. During a manoeuvre on 10 November, he had panicked, thinking that he had seen terrorists, and had emptied his magazine into the air. At about 5 p.m. on the day of his death, the other guards on duty heard a shot and saw a tracer bullet heading into the air. On searching for the source of the shot, they found İsa, on his knees, his chest facing towards the ground and resting on his G3 rifle.     The autopsy on the deceased’s body found a bullet entry wound, measuring 4 x 3 cm, above the left nipple and surrounded by a burn mark, and three bullet exit wounds in the dorsal region. According to the forensic doctors, these had been caused by a burst of close-range shots; the three bullets had followed an oblique path and destroyed the upper section of the heart, the main veins, the lower left section of the lungs and one vertebra.   On 26 May 1998 the military prosecutor concluded that İsa had committed suicide and that it was not necessary to bring proceedings in this connection. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against this decision.   The applicant alleged that his son had not committed suicide but had been killed by a corporal or a soldier. He relied, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Having regard to the evidence before it, the Court considered that any allegation that İsa Salgın had been murdered would be purely speculative. Seeing no reason to contest the finding established by the Turkish authorities, to the effect that the applicant’s son had committed suicide, the Court concluded unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 2 with regard to the death of the applicant’s son. Furthermore, like the Turkish authorities, the Court accepted that a form of unpredictable psychological depression had caused İsa to commit suicide, since, during his lifetime, he had apparently displayed no behaviour traits suggesting a real and immediate likelihood that he would end his life. No blame could therefore be attached to Turkey for failing to meet its obligation to protect the applicant’s son from himself.   In addition, the Court was of the opinion that the exact circumstances of İsa’s death had not been duly assessed and determined. It also noted that the applicant had in effect been excluded from the investigation. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the investigation carried out in this case, taken as a whole, had not been “effective”. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a procedural violation of Article 2.   The Court also concluded, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 13 and that there had been no violation of Article 14.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 12,500 for non-pecuniary damage, of which EUR 10,000 was to be assigned to the deceased’s heirs, and EUR 3,057 for costs and expenses, minus the EUR 630 already received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid. (The judgement is available only in French).     Ünsal v. Turkey (no. 24632/02)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) The applicant, Kaan Ünsal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968. He is currently held in Ankara Prison (Turkey).   In May 2001 he was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of the illegal organisation DHKP C (Revolutionary Party of the People’s Liberation – Front, armed extreme left). That sentence was halved following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained about the unfairness of the proceedings brought against him; in particular, he alleged that he had never been invited to attend the hearings before Erzurum State Security Court.   The applicant considered that the criminal proceedings brought against him had not been fair. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial).   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c). The Court reiterated that where a person had been convicted at the close of proceedings which were contrary to Article 6 of the Convention, a new trial or reopening of the proceedings, at the applicant’s request, was, in principle, an appropriate means of redressing the breach found. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Veske v. Turkey (no. 11838/02)   No violation of Article 5 § 5 The applicants, Ahmet Veske and Burhan Veske, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul.   The applicants, who were suspected of being members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), were arrested and placed in police custody on 26 August 2001; on 1 September 2001 they were brought before a judge, who ordered that Ahmet Veske be placed in pre-trial detention, which lasted until his release on 29 November 2001, and that Burhan Veske be released. The criminal proceedings brought against them resulted in their acquittal in November 2002.   The applicants complained, in particular, of the length of their detention in police custody, namely six days, and of the lack of any remedy concerning it. They relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of time spent by the applicants in police custody and a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a remedy that would have enabled them to contest the lawfulness of their detention in police custody. In addition, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had not been a violation of Article 5 § 5, as Turkish law provided for a right to compensation for the deprivation of the applicants’ liberty. By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Yengin v. Turkey (no. 42091/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Ali Rıza Yengin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul.   The application concerned Mr Yengin’s dismissal from his post as an electricity meter reader in January 1994 following the privatisation in the 1990s of electricity distribution in Turkey.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the authorities’ failure to comply with a court judgment of 12 November 1997 ordering his reinstatement to his former post and the excessive length of administrative proceedings concerning his request for compensation which have lasted more than six years and are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.   Given that Mr Yengin had been notified through his lawyer in May 2000 of his appointment to a post with BEDAŞ, the present company responsible for electricity distribution in Istanbul, and, in the absence of him providing any convincing explanation as to why he had not taken up his duties, the Court found that the national authorities had acted in accordance with the court judgment of 12 November 1997, and rejected the complaint in that respect.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the length of the proceedings and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Yurt v. Turkey (no. 12439/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Ahmet Yurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant, who was suspected of belonging to the illegal far-left armed organisation THKP/C MLSPB, was arrested and placed in police custody on 2 December 1997. He was released in September 2004. The proceedings are currently pending before Istanbul Assize Court.   The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention (six years, nine months and five days) and about the length of the proceedings brought against him (to date, more than nine years, one month and 28   days). He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     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) Väänänen v. Finland (no. 10736/03) Zmaliński v. Poland (no. 44319/02)   ***   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.