CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 mai 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 } .s4632662A { width:108.13pt; display:inline-block } .sAD182683 { width:146.82pt; display:inline-block } .s4CD89083 { width:98.14pt; display:inline-block } .s437D70F { width:186.82pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC75EC843 { width:44.84pt; 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   328 22.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Poland, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments 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.     Muttilainen v. Finland (application no 18358/02) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Marko Muttilainen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Kylänpää (Finland).   In June 1998 Mr Muttilainen was arrested while committing a theft. As a result, he was convicted of attempted theft and violently resisting a police officer and sentenced to six months’, later reduced to three months’, imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Muttilainen complained about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention because no oral hearing was held in the appeal proceedings. It further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   6 §   3   (d). The Court awarded Mr   Muttilainen 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kaszczyniec v. Poland (no. 59526/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Leszek Kaszczyniec, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Szczecin (Poland).   In March 1996, charges were brought against Mr Kaszczyniec for large-scale fraud. After an international search warrant was issued, Mr Kaszczyniec was arrested in Germany and extradited to Poland where he was detained on remand. Ultimately, he was convicted as charged and sentenced to eight years’, later reduced to six years’, imprisonment and a fine.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Kaszczyniec complained that the length of his detention on remand and the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the unreasonable length of detention which had lasted for more than three years and three months. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. Mr Kaszczyniec was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Rojek v. Poland (no. 15969/06)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Daniel Rojek, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Marki (Poland).   The applicant, who was suspected of having committed armed assaults against lorry drivers by assuming the identity of a police officer, as part of an organised group, was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in July 2001. He was convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment in March 2005. Initially overturned in December 2005, the applicant’s sentence was subsequently reduced to six years’ imprisonment. In the meantime the applicant was released in March 2006.   The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention, which amounted to about four years. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. As the applicant had submitted no claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was not necessary to make an award in that connection. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Bülbül v. Turkey (no. 47297/99)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Kemal Bülbül, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Ankara. At the time of the events, he was the provincial leader of HADEP (People’s Democracy Party) in Ankara.   In November 1998 police officers carried out a search in the Ankara office of HADEP and Mr Bülbül was taken into police custody. He was later convicted of aiding and abetting the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. In May 2001, the proceedings against the applicant, who, in the meantime, had been released pending trial, were suspended.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Mr Bülbül alleged that the military judge, who had ordered his detention on remand, and Ankara State Security Court, which had decided on his appeal against the detention order, had not been independent and impartial.   Finding that the military judge who had ordered Mr Bülbül’s detention on remand could not be regarded as independent of the army’s executive, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It followed that the applicant could legitimately fear that the State Security Court, also including a military judge, had lacked independence and impartiality and the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. Mr Bülbül was awarded EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Oya Ataman v. Turkey (no. 47738/99)   Struck out The applicant, Oya Ersoy (previously Ataman), is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul where she works as a lawyer.   Following her marriage to Hüseyin Ataman in July 1995, the applicant, in accordance with Article 153 § 1 of the Civil Code, had to take her husband’s surname. In agreement with her husband, the applicant requested that her maiden name, “Ersoy”, be adopted as their surname.   The applicant complained that the refusal of the Turkish authorities to allow her and her husband to bear her maiden name amounted to a violation of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Having regard to the applicant’s divorce in April 2003, the Court found that the applicant’s complaint no longer concerned a live issue and that the continued examination of the application was no longer justified. Accordingly, the Court decided, unanimously, to strike the case out of the list. (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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kansız v. Turkey (no. 74433/01) The applicant, Cumhur Kansız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Ankara (Turkey).   The applicant complained about delays in the payment of additional compensation which he had been awarded for expropriation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) 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 not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13. It awarded the applicant EUR 20,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Friendly settlement Haggan and McCavery v. United Kingdom (nos 63176/00 and 64984/01) McElroy and Others v. United Kingdom (nos 57646/00, 57946/00 and 60937/00) O’Connell and Others v. United Kingdom (nos 58370/00, 61781/00 and 62966/00) The applicants are eight United Kingdom nationals who complained that, because they were men, they had been denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.   They relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The three cases have been struck out of the list following friendly settlements in which a total of 49,166.85   pounds sterling (GBP) (approximately EUR   72,324) is to be paid to the applicants, sums ranging from GBP   1,191.44 (approximately EUR 1,753) to GBP   16,397.15 (approximately EUR 24,120). (The judgments are available only in English.)     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.   Toive Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 43160/98)   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.