CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 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 } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .sA5453EBC { width:64.12pt; display:inline-block } .s82BFB0F1 { width:68.82pt; display:inline-block } .s395AC90C { width:69.44pt; 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   221 10.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   One repetitive case [2] can be found at the end of the press release. (The judgments are available only in French.)       No violation of Article 8 Panarisi v. Italy (no. 46794/99)   No violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) The applicant, Salvatore Panarisi, is an Italian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Realmonte (Italy).   In September 1991 an investigation was opened concerning the applicant who was suspected of drug trafficking and carrying offensive weapons. In connection with that investigation the Palermo preliminary investigations judge authorised interception of telephone calls to and from the applicant’s home and the use of listening devices. He also took evidence against the applicant from P., a person facing charges in related proceedings.   On 27 November 1995 Agrigento District Court sentenced the applicant to 15 years and two months’ imprisonment, basing its findings in particular on the recordings made by means of the listening devices and on the witness evidence given by P. The sentence was reduced on appeal to 14 years and four months’ imprisonment. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 12 May 1998.   The applicant complained of the use of the listening devices and the interception of his telephone calls and complained that he had been convicted on the basis of statements made by a person he had not been able to examine or have examined. He relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Noting that there was nothing in the file to show that the applicant’s right to respect for his private life had been infringed by the Italian authorities, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8.   It further held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 on account of the use made of recordings resulting from listening devices and telephone tapping and of P.’s statements.   Emin Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 32907/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Emin Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Antalya (Turkey).   In September 1996 the applicant brought proceedings seeking compensation for detention in the context of criminal proceedings which ended in his acquittal. The proceedings are still pending before the Turkish courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings, namely more than ten years and six months to date.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 EUR for costs and expenses.     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same finding as in similar cases raising the same issue under the Convention:   Öner Kaya v. Turkey (no. 9007/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Öner Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   In December 2000 he was sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment for forgery, uttering forged documents and fraud. The sentence was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 23   September 2002.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant submitted, among other complaints, that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair because he had not been provided with a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation and had been unable to reply to it.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   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 in 1959 by the Council of Europe Member States 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.