CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 avril 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 } .s6BE90F56 { width:68.13pt; display:inline-block } .s67CD4EEF { width:82.8pt; display:inline-block } .sF1FFB911 { width:17.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF5615DE3 { width:98.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sAEBE8B04 { width:4.76pt; display:inline-block } .s4E98F679 { width:87.49pt; 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   203 3.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Turkey and   United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Andrulewicz v. Poland (application no. 43120/05)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Andrzej Andrulewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Suwałki (Poland).   In the context of criminal proceedings brought against him, the applicant was placed in pre-trail detention in Suwałki Prison in 2004. One of the letters sent to him in prison by his lawyer arrived with a stamp marked “censored”, the handwritten date of 30   September 2005 and an illegible signature. According to the applicant, the envelope had been opened and then resealed with adhesive tape.   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention of Human Rights, the applicant alleged that his correspondence with his lawyer had been intercepted by the prison authorities.   The Court noted that Polish legislation provided that a detainee’s correspondence with his or her lawyer could not be censored after the expiry of a 14-day time-limit from the date of his or her arrest. By intercepting the applicant’s letter after that time-limit had expired, the authorities had clearly breached the law. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Tereszczenko v. Poland (no. 37326/04)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Wlodzimierz Tereszczenko, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Warsaw.   On 19 November 2002 Mr Tereszczenko was placed in police custody on suspicion of drug trafficking for which he was later convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He was released from detention pending enforcement of the prison sentence and the proceedings are currently pending.   Mr Tereszczenko complained that his state of health had not been compatible with the length and conditions of his detention, which had lasted one year, 10 months and 12 days.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Ari and Others v. Turkey (no. 65508/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The 31 applicants are all Turkish nationals and live in Mardin (Turkey).   The applicants claimed that they had been deprived by the authorities, without compensation, of a plot of land which belonged to them, following de facto expropriation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13. It awarded the applicants EUR 240,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Copland v. United Kingdom (no. 62617/00)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Lynette Copland, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1950 and lives in Llanelli (United Kingdom).   In 1991 Ms Copland was employed by Carmarthenshire College, a statutory body administered by the State. In 1995 she became the personal assistant to the College Principal and from the end of 1995 she was required to work closely with the newly-appointed Deputy Principal.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life and correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Copland complained that, during her employment at the College, her telephone, e-mail and internet usage had been monitored at the Deputy Principal’s instigation.   The Court considered that the collection and storage of personal information relating to Ms   Copland through her use of the telephone, e-mail and internet interfered with her right to respect for her private life and correspondence, and that that interference was not “in accordance with the law”, there having been no domestic law at the relevant time to regulate monitoring. While the Court accepted that it might sometimes have been legitimate for an employer to monitor and control an employee’s use of telephone and internet, in the present case it was not required to determine whether that interference was “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 and that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 13. It awarded Ms   Copland EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   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)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova (no. 39745/02) The applicant, Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei, is a Moldovan company registered in Moldova.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complained about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in its favour.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court also found that the applicant company is still entitled to recover the judgment debt and awarded it EUR 1,943 in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Baştımar and Others v. Turkey (no. 27709/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Şemsettin Baştımar, Şükrü Demirtaş, Ali Şahindal, Kenan Aygören and Tekin Gencer, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969, 1967, 1972 and, in the case of the last two, in 1971.   They were accused of belonging to the illegal organisation PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and sentenced by the Istanbul State Security Court to terms of imprisonment.     The applicants complained that they had not had a fair trial, in violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial), particularly on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the state security court’s lack of independence and impartiality and held that it was unnecessary to examine the other complaints under Article 6. It 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 EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Necip Kendirci and Others v. Turkey (nos. 10582/02, 1441/03 and 7420/03) The applicants, Necip Kendirci, Halil Kalkan and Cafer Kaplan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1950, 1939 and 1928 respectively and live in Gaziantep (Turkey).   The applicants complained about the late payment of additional compensation for expropriation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   6 §   1. It 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 a total sum of EUR 28,150   in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant, 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.   Kreisz v. Hungary (no. 12941/05)   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.