CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 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 } .s7A98A806 { width:263.55pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7E16EC6C { width:82.12pt; display:inline-block } .s3BA21AFC { width:117.47pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s1965DFEA { width:266.16pt; display:inline-block } .sB65E4568 { width:228.83pt; display:inline-block } .s2AF5138B { width:114.14pt; display:inline-block } .s17CCD76D { width:87.48pt; display:inline-block } .sD2271D28 { width:56.8pt; display:inline-block } .sAC001D6D { width:151.51pt; display:inline-block } .s2214154D { width:107.48pt; display:inline-block } .s1D1A0C2D { width:125.46pt; display:inline-block } .s8E5B5BF2 { width:66.16pt; display:inline-block } .s77830AC { width:78.14pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99C6B9D9 { width:70.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA98F46F1 { width:40.15pt; display:inline-block } .s80D91CF4 { width:394.26pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s3EFFE98F { width:59.45pt; display:inline-block } .s11B45B56 { width:82.79pt; 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   230 12.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Moldova, Poland, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 38 Chamber judgments, none of which 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 6 §1 (fairness) Bulinwar OOD and Hrusanov v. Bulgaria (application no 66455/01)   The applicants are Georgi Hrusanov, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Sofia, and the limited company Bulinwar Ood, of which Mr Hrusanov is the administrator.   The applicant company brought legal proceedings concerning the use of a property which it owned and in respect of which it had been unable to obtain a certificate of compliance with the relevant safety and building regulations.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants alleged a violation of their right of access to a court on account of the administrative courts’ limited powers to examine the various issues in dispute.   The European Court of Human Rights declared the application inadmissible in so far as it concerned Mr Hrusanov and admissible as regards the applicant company. It ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and held that the judgment in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction with regard to the alleged non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant company 1,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ganchev v. Bulgaria (no. 57855/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Velko Stoyanov Ganchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Velingrad (Bulgaria).   Mr Ganchev complained that, when he was arrested in November 1999 on charges of sexual assault, he was not brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. He further complained about the length of the ensuing criminal proceedings against him.   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 held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage Mr Ganchev had sustained. He was awarded EUR 300 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Terziev v. Bulgaria (no. 62594/00)   Vasil Angelov v. Bulgaria (no. 61662/00)   The applicants, Hristo Grozev Terziev and Vasil Hristov Angelov, were Bulgarian nationals born in 1936 and 1932 respectively. Mr Terziev died in 2005 and Mr Angelov in 2003; the European Court authorised their widows to continue the proceedings before it.   In 1999 Mr Terziev was prosecuted for failing to exercise proper supervision over the employees of the bank he managed. Mr Angelov was prosecuted in 1986 for misappropriation.   The applicants each complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against them, namely more than six years and four months up to the time of Mr Terziev’s death and approximately 11 years and two months when Mr Angelov died. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1. In the Terziev case it awarded the applicant’s widow EUR 2,400 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses. In the case of Vasil Angelov it awarded the applicant’s widow EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Yambolov v. Bulgaria (no. 68177/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Galin Grozdev Yambolov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1975. He is at present imprisoned in Varna (Bulgaria).   The applicant was arrested on 21 April 1999 on suspicion of committing several burglaries. On the following day charges were brought against him and he was placed in pre-trial detention. On 20 February 2002 he was found guilty, as a repeat offender, of 12 separate counts and sentenced to 12 sentences of two years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the length of his detention pending trial, namely two years and ten months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,700 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 128 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pello v. Estonia (no. 11423/03)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) The applicant, Ain Pello, is an Estonian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Estonia.   Mr Pello complained about the unfairness of criminal proceedings against him on charges of having caused serious bodily injury because he had not had the opportunity to examine two witnesses, whose questioning would have led to his acquittal.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (d). Mr   Pello not having 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.)   Laaksonen v. Finland (no. 70216/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Pekka Laaksonen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Riihimäki (Finland).   Mr Laaksonen complained that the Court of Appeal had convicted him of aiding and abetting debtor dishonesty, without an oral hearing, and even after having been acquitted by the District Court. He further complained that the nature of the prosecution was time-barred.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (a) (right to be informed promptly of the accusation against him) and (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unfairness of the proceedings and awarded Mr Laaksonen EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kozimor v. Poland (no. 10816/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Piotr Kozimor, a Polish national, was born in 1971 and lived in Przemyśl (Poland). Following his death in August 2005, his sister continued the proceedings before the Court.   In 1997 Mr Kozimor was arrested and detained on remand on suspicion of having committed homicide for which he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the length of his detention and the lack of equality of arms in the proceedings to prolong that detention. He further complained about censorship of his correspondence, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded Mr   Kozimor’s sister EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kwiatkowski v. Poland (no. 20200/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Krsysztof Kwiatkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Gdynia (Poland).   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Kwiatkowski complained about the length of his detention on remand, which lasted more than four years, on suspicion of homicide and for which he was convicted and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded Mr   Kwiatkowski EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Święcicki v. Poland (no. 25490/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Ronald Święcicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Świdnica (Poland).   The applicant was arrested on suspicion of organising a criminal conspiracy and placed in pre-trial detention on 8 March 2001. He was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment on 4 July 2003.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention, namely two years and four months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Atıcı v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 31540/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Hüseyin Atıcı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Atıcı complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him on account of his membership of an illegal organisation.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr   Atıcı EUR 9,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Bedir and Others v. Turkey (no. 52644/99)   No violation of Article 13 The applicants, Şehmus Bedir, Mehmet Bedir, Ahmet Bedir and Zekiye Bedir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955, 1924, 1945 and 1938, respectively, and are members of the same family. They currently live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The applicants all lived in a village, Kışlak, situated in a region which was, at the relevant time, in a state-of-emergency.   The applicants alleged that State security forces had destroyed their homes and possessions and forced them to leave with no possibility of return and that they had been denied effective remedies in domestic law.   They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Relating to the complaints under Article 3, 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the Court upheld the Government’s preliminary objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It further held that there had been no violation of Article 13. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey (nos 10037/03 and 14813/03) The applicants, Hünkar Demirel and Hidir Ateş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1951 repectively and live in Brüchköbel and Rüsselsheim (Germany). Mrs Demirel is the editor of the weekly newspaper Yedinci Gündem (Seventh Order of the Day) and Mr Ateş is its owner.   In June 2002 the applicants were twice fined for publishing in July and December 2001 statements by members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and an interview with a member of its executive committee. In addition the newspaper was ordered to be closed down for several days.   The applicants submitted that their criminal convictions had breached Article 10 (freedom of expression). They further relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), complaining in particular that they 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 noted that although certain particularly virulent passages painted a very negative picture of the Turkish State, and thus gave the text a hostile connotation, they did not exhort the use of violence or incite resistance or rebellion, and they did not constitute hate-speech, which, in the Court’s view, was the essential element to be taken into consideration. The Court further noted the nature and severity of the penalties imposed on the applicants. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   It awarded the applicants EUR 1,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Tangün and Others v. Turkey (no. 38128/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Tekin Tangün, Metin Yavuz, Ali Ercan   Gökoğlu, Egemen Seyfettin Kuşçu, Hatice   Ruken   Kılıç, Naciye Barbaros, Duygu Eygi, Yeter   Gönül, İsmail Özmen, Murat Bargu, Feridun   Yücel   Batu and İbrahim Akın, are Turkish nationals. On 1 June 2006 the Court decided to strike the case out of the list in so far as it concerned İbrahim Akın.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants alleged that they had been detained in police custody on suspicion of involvement in an illegal organisation without having been brought promptly before a judge.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded EUR 1,000 to Mr   Tangün and EUR 500 to each of the other applicants. For costs and expenses, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,000, jointly. (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) Hajduković v. Croatia (no. 38303/02) Petrović v. Croatia (no. 38292/02) Radivoj Novaković v. Croatia (no. 43446/02) Terzin-Laub v. Croatia (no. 43362/02) The six applicants are all Croatian nationals.   Each case concerned proceedings in which the applicants, having relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act, had sought damages after their houses had been blown up by unknown perpetrators. The proceedings were stayed pending enactment of new legislation under the 1996 Amendment to the Act.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained about Parliament’s enactment of the 1996 Amendment.   The Court held, unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in all four cases, and that there was no need to examine the complaints under Article 13.   The applicants were awarded a total of EUR 6,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and a total of EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ovciarov v. Moldova (no. 31228/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Nicolai Ovciarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Chişinău.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Ovciarov complained about the quashing of a final judgment in his favour.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   22,300 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Struck out Dremlyugin v. Russia (no. 75136/01) Gaydukov v. Russia (no. 75038/01) Grechko v. Russia (no. 75037/01) Oleg Zolotukhin v. Russia (no. 75032/01) Saplenkov v. Russia (no. 8190/02) Sevostyanov v. Russia (no. 76736/01) Shabalin v. Russia (no. 75027/01) Shishlov v. Russia (no. 75035/01) Usanov v. Russia (no. 75030/01)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Glushakova v. Russia (no. 38719/03) Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia (no. 13820/04) Kletsova v. Russia (no. 24842/04) Korolev v. Russia (no. 25550/05) Mizyuk v. Russia (no. 9253/06) Neofita v. Russia (no. 3311/06) The 16 applicants are all Russian nationals.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) the applicants complained that judgments given in their favour were either not enforced in good time or not enforced at all.   In nine of the cases the Court noted that the parties had reached a settlement at domestic level and decided to strike them out of the list.   In the remaining six cases, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the cases of Grigoryev and Kakaurova and Mizyuk the Court further held that the State should pay the applicants the judgment debts still owed to them. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in the case of Kletsova . The sums awarded to the other applicants under Article 41 can be found at the end of the judgments. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Mevlüt Kaya v. Turkey (no. 1383/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Mevlüt Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in İzmir.   Mr Kaya complained about a penal order sentencing him, without a public hearing, to three months’ imprisonment and a fine.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), § 2 (presumption of innocence) and § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage Mr Kaya had sustained. He was awarded EUR 200 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Turğay v. Turkey (no. 21085/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Abdulkadir Turğay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Adana (Turkey).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence), Mr Turğay complained that the principal public prosecutor’s written opinion relating to his conviction for membership of an illegal organisation had never been served on him.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage Mr Turğay had suffered. (The judgment is 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) Šoštarić v. Croatia (no. 39659/04) Serdar Çakmak v. Turkey (no. 29600/02)   ***   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) 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.