CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .s44B77D25 { width:31.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7E421E03 { width:106.81pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s31BD2592 { width:95.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s34BDFF91 { width:36.18pt; display:inline-block } .s80D91CF4 { width:394.26pt; display:inline-block } .s44075453 { width:61.5pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC061CC95 { width:142.13pt; display:inline-block } .s67794424 { width:58.14pt; display:inline-block } .sC0807AB4 { width:116.15pt; display:inline-block } .sD991819A { width:200.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .s67F902E9 { width:18.72pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2B910A52 { width:269.52pt; display:inline-block } .s8B08D021 { width:256.88pt; display:inline-block } .s79DDB48F { width:102.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4A9019A8 { width:63.44pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   265 26.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Romania, Russia, the Netherlands, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 24 Chamber judgments, none of which is 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.   Saint-Adam and Millot v. France (application no. 72038/01)   Just satisfaction The applicants, Jean-Patrick Saint-Adam and his wife Edwige Millot, are French nationals who were born in 1950 and 1965, respectively, and live in Paris.   In a judgment of 2 May 2006 (press release no. 253 of 2006), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). It considered at that time that the question of just satisfaction for pecuniary damage was not ready for decision.   In its judgment on just satisfaction delivered today, the Court decided to award the applicants 60,000 euros (EUR) jointly for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Chadimová v. Czech Republic (no. 50073/99)   Just satisfaction        The applicant, Marta Chadimová, is a Czech national who was born in 1952 and lives in Prague.   In a judgment of 18 April 2006 (press release no. 222 of 2006), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). At that time, it considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   In its judgment on just satisfaction delivered today, the Court decided to award the applicant EUR 12,800 for pecuniary damage, EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 285 already paid to her by the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Patera v. Czech Republic (no. 25326/03)   No violation of Article 8 The applicant, Luboš Patera, is a Czech national who was born in 1963 and lives in Běleč (Czech Republic).   In 1989 Mr Patera and his wife R.P. had a son; a few months later, R.P. left the applicant, taking the child with her. On 8 June 1989 the applicant instituted proceedings concerning the exercise of parental authority and applied for custody of his son.   In October 1995 the district court gave an interim decision allowing the applicant to see his son every other weekend. Prevented from exercising his visiting rights, the applicant sought the assistance of the authorities in having the decision enforced. As a result, the court ordered R.P. to pay a fine of approximately EUR 1,080 for obstructing the applicant in the exercise of his visiting rights between June 2001 and November 2003. Criminal charges were also brought against her in 2005 for the same reason and she was sentenced to 50 hours’ community service for having denied the applicant his visiting rights in June 2001.   Subsequent contact visits between the applicant and his son proved difficult, as the latter did not wish to go with his father. The applicant’s son reached the age of majority in February 2007.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings concerning the exercise of parental authority, which had lasted for 15 years to date (the Court being unable to take account of the period prior to 18 March 1992, the date on which the Convention entered into force in respect of the Czech Republic). The applicant further complained, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), of the failure to enforce the interim decision granting him visiting rights.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings in question.   Regarding the applicant’s complaint under Article 8, the Court referred to its admissibility decision in the case, in which it had found that it had jurisdiction to examine the application only in respect of the period after July 2002. It noted in particular that the situation in the instant case had been a critical one. The applicant had insisted on the enforcement of his visiting rights as determined in 1995, while his son persistently refused to cooperate, his persistence apparently unshaken by the penalties imposed on his mother. In the Court’s view, the difficult circumstances of the case and the overriding interests of the child had prevented the authorities from doing any more than they had. Whilst acknowledging the frustration caused to the applicant by his unsuccessful efforts, the Court could not but deplore his unhelpful attitude towards the attempts to assist him. Accordingly, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 8.   It awarded the applicant EUR 1,200 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 436 already paid to him by the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Durdan v. Romania (no. 6098/03)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Ion Durdan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Drobeta Turnu Severin (Romania).   The applicant alleged that the failure to execute a final judgment delivered in 1997 ordering that he be reinstated in his post and that compensation be paid to him had infringed his right of access to a court and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) 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 that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Struck out Gergely v. Romania (no. 57885/00) Kalanyos and Others v. Romania (no. 57884/00) The applicants are four Romanian nationals.   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complained about destruction of their property and the ensuing proceedings before the domestic courts.   In both cases, noting the terms of the Romanian Government’s declarations and the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to, the Court no longer considered it necessary to continue the examination of the applications. Accordingly, the Court decided to strike the cases out of its list of cases. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Konstatinov v. the Netherlands (no. 16351/03)   No violation of Article 8 The applicant, Jadranka Konstatinov, who is of Roma origin, was born in 1964 in Rgotina (Serbia). She is currently living in ‘s-Hertogenbosch (the Netherlands). She is also known to the Netherlands authorities under four other names.   Ms Konstatinov has twice been denied a residence permit to stay in the Netherlands with her husband, Mr G., who holds a Netherlands permanent residence permit but who did not comply with the minimum income requirement under the relevant immigration rules in respect of family reunion. In November 1998 Ms Konstatinov was declared an undesirable alien on account of her criminal record in the Netherlands, which entailed a five-year exclusion order.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Konstatinov complained about the threat of her being expelled from the Netherlands.   The Court concluded that the Netherlands authorities had not failed to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, Ms Konstatinov’s interests and, on the other hand, its own interest in controlling immigration and public expenditure and in the prevention of disorder or crime. Consequently, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sylla v. the Netherlands (no. 14683/03)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Béliard Sylla, was born in 1966. At the time of his application to the Court he was serving a prison sentence in the Netherlands.   In a judgment of 6 July 2006 (press release no. 407), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) concerning weekly routine strip-searches to which Mr   Sylla had been subjected while in a maximum-security prison. At that time, it considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   In its judgment on just satisfaction delivered today, the Court held, unanimously, that the Netherlands was to pay the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Vozhigov v. Russia (no. 5953/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Andrey Valeryevich Vozhigov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Bryansk (Russia).   In June 2001 Mr Vozhigov was convicted of murder and sentenced to 11 years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Vozhigov alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Çapan v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 29849/02)   Violation of Article 10   The applicant, Cihan Çapan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Altdorf (Switzerland). At the material time he was the editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper Özgür Bakiş .   On 26 September 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant to pay a heavy fine, equivalent to EUR 1,486, and banned publication of the newspaper for three days, on account of the publication of an article written by one of the PKK leaders on the subject of Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK armed struggle and democratisation in Turkey.   The Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction on 26 February 2001.   The applicant maintained that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression and complained of the fact that he had not been provided with a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. He relied, in particular, on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court considered that the reasons given by the Turkish courts could not be considered sufficient in themselves to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. While certain passages of the article had painted a negative picture of the Turkish State’s policy towards its citizens of Kurdish origin, 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 considered that the applicant’s conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to provide the applicant with a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor. It considered that there was no need to examine the applicant’s other complaints separately.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Kemal Kahraman and Ali Kahraman v. Turkey (no. 42104/02) The applicants, Kemal Kahraman and Ali Kahraman, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1967 and 1972, respectively. They are both serving prison sentences in Eskişehir (Turkey).   In November 2001 the Niğde Criminal Court convicted, in absentia , the applicants of insurrection against the administration of Niğde prison where they were detained for being members of the IBDA-C (Great East Islamic Raiders-Front). As a result, they were each sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained about the unfairness of proceedings against them, namely that they had been unable to appear at hearings before the Niğde Criminal Court and that they had not had legal representation.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and awarded each applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000, jointly, for costs and expenses (less EUR 850 received in legal aid from the Council of Europe). (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Üçak and Others v. Turkey (nos 75527/01 and 11837/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants, Besra Üçak, Güllişah Kargılı, Hayreddin Dağlı and Cüneyd Dağlı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1969, 1970 and 1954 and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The applicants are the wife, brothers and sister of A.İ Dağlı, who disappeared on 14 April 1995. On that date the Silvan district gendarmerie command and the infantry battalion of the internal security forces had conducted an operation against the PKK [3] , an illegal organisation, in five villages belonging to the district of Silvan, including the village of Eşme.   The applicants maintained that the Turkish authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation capable of shedding light on the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of A.İ Dağlı following his arrest. They also argued that they had not had an effective remedy. They relied on Articles 2 (right to life) and 6 (right to a fair hearing), taken in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court observed in particular that the criminal investigations conducted in the present case by the public prosecutor’s offices in Diyarbakır and Silvan had been closed without the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of A.İ Dağlı having been established. The district governor had based his decision to bring the proceedings to an end on the report of the person in charge of the operation in question, which stated that A.İ Dağlı had taken flight during the operation and that it had not been possible to arrest him. The Silvan public prosecutor’s office had therefore discharged the officers in question without hearing evidence from the gendarmes involved in the operation. Accordingly, the Court considered that the investigations into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of A.İ Dağlı had not been conducted in a thorough or effective manner by independent bodies. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2.   The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded EUR 15,000 to Besra Üçak and her three children and EUR 1,000 each to Güllişah Kargılı, Hayreddin Dağlı and Cüneyd Dağlı for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 715 already paid to them by the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:             Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Erbiceanu v. Romania (no. 24959/02) Funke v. Romania (no. 16891/02)   Mihai Alexandru Ion Erbiceanu is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest. Ana Elisabeta Maria Funke is a German national who was born in 1931 and lives in Strasbourg (France).   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants alleged that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been infringed on account of their inability to enjoy the use of the flats of which they had been recognised by a final and irrevocable judgment to be the legal owners. Their inability to make use of the flats had resulted from the sale of the properties by the State to the occupying tenants. Mrs Funke also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held, unanimously, in both these cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the Funke case, it considered that it was unnecessary to examine the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1. The Court held that Romania must return the flats in question to the applicants within three months from the date on which the present judgments became final, failing which the State would have to pay EUR 68,000 to Mr   Erbiceanu and EUR 153,000 to Mrs Funke. The Court also awarded Mr Erbiceanu EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded Mrs Funke EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,600 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Salduz v. Turkey (no. 36391/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) The applicant, Yusuf Salduz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and is living in Izmir (Turkey).   In December 2001 Mr Salduz was convicted for aiding and abetting the PKK and sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment, later reduced to two and a half years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr Salduz complained about the unfairness of proceedings against him, namely that the submissions of the Principal Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to him and that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during police custody.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s written opinion, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered. Mr Salduz was awarded EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.   The Court further held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   3   (c) on account of the lack of legal assistance during police custody. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kozyyakova and Gureyev v. Russia (no. 16108/06) Girya and Others v. Ukraine (no. 17787/02) Kolosenko v. Ukraine (no. 40200/02) Strateychuk v. Ukraine (no. 25543/02)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aleksandr Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 8371/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants are two Russian nationals and 15 Ukrainian nationals.   Relying 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 the case of Aleksandr Shevchenko v. Ukraine , the applicant also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In all the cases, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the case of Aleksandr Shevchenko v. Ukraine the Court held that there had also been a violation of Article 13. The Court further held that the State should pay the applicants the judgment debts still owed to them in the cases of Girya and Others v. Ukraine and Strateychuk v. Ukraine . The sums awarded in all the cases under Article 41 can be found at the end of the judgments. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants, relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complained about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Prischl v. Austria (no. 2881/04) Laudon v. Germany (no. 14635/03) Psarakis v. Greece (no. 624/05)   Makropoulou and Others v. Greece (no. 646/05) No 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. [3] Workers’ Party of Kurdistan.