CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 juin 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s77008F62 { width:98.12pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .s56460A04 { width:71.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s29D6FB6E { width:84.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC548D554 { width:151.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA7C9C0BB { width:26.85pt; display:inline-block } .s259B8E28 { width:55.46pt; 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   381 5.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning   Hungary, Italy and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Ali Koç v. Turkey (application no. 39862/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Ali   Koç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971. At the time he lodged his application he was detained in Gaziantep Prison (Turkey).   In March 2002, while he was serving a life sentence, the applicant sent a letter to one of his friends with a number of texts that he wanted to have published. The prison administration’s disciplinary board refused to authorise the dispatch of the letter on the ground that its receipt by the press would be “undesirable”, because it contained texts written in Kurdish that praised the PKK [2] and described the Turkish armed forces as torturers. Appeals by the applicant against that decision were unsuccessful.   The applicant complained about the interception and withholding of his correspondence. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that sections 144 and 147 of Law no. 647 concerning prison administration and the execution of sentences did not indicate with sufficient clarity the extent and conditions of the exercise of discretion by the authorities in their scrutiny of prisoners’ correspondence. It further observed that the implementation of those provisions did not seem to make up for that shortcoming.   The Court accordingly found that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence was not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention and thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of that Article. It awarded Mr Koç 1,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses, less the   EUR 701 already received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Bağrıyanık v. Turkey (no. 43256/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Mehmet Hadi Bağrıyanık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.   In December 1995 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. Investigations were subsequently carried out into a homicide and a bombing and it was decided that the applicant should remain in detention pending trial, having regard in particular to the serious nature of the charges, the preservation of evidence and the date on which he was first remanded in custody.   In 2001 the applicant went on a hunger strike which, according to him, lasted for 40 days, and according to the Turkish Government, for nine days. In August 2003 a neurologist at Gebze State Hospital diagnosed the applicant as having Romberg’s sign [3] .   The applicant lodged several applications for his release, which was ultimately ordered by the Assize Court in December 2005. The case is apparently still pending before the Turkish courts at the time of the delivery of this judgment.   The applicant contended that his state of health had been incompatible with his continuing detention and complained in particular of the length of his detention on remand (more than ten years) and of the proceedings against him (11 years and five months, to date, for one level of jurisdiction). He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and bearing in mind the assurance given by the Turkish Government as to their practice and the observations of the Court’s delegation which had visited prisons in connection with a mission concerning applications lodged by prisoners who, after a hunger strike, were suffering from Wernicke Korsakoff syndrome, the Court found that there were no serious substantiated grounds to suggest that the continuation or conditions of the applicant’s custody had as such constituted inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court thus held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Moreover, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s custody on remand, and a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the fact that the applicant’s appeals against the decisions to prolong his detention had been examined in the course of proceedings in which neither the applicant himself, nor anyone representing him, had participated. Lastly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings against him.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 850 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Demirhan, Görsav and Çelik v. Turkey (nos. 28152/02, 28155/02 and 28156/02) The applicants, Nezir Demirhan, Mehdi Görsav and Fırat Çelik, are Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır.   The case concerned the prolonged non-enforcement of judgments by Diyarbakır Labour Court awarding compensation to the applicants, former manual workers for Diyarbakır Sur Municipality, who had been dismissed in May 1999 without payment of their wages or any other indemnity.   They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court declared inadmissible the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Mr Görsav, who had reached a friendly settlement with his former employer in June 2002, and admissible with regard to the other two applicants.   Having failed to comply with the Labour Court’s judgments, the Turkish authorities had prevented Mr   Demirhan and Mr Çelik from receiving money to which they had been entitled. The Court considered that lack of funds was not an adequate justification for that interference and therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to those two applicants. Having also failed for years to to take the necessary measures to comply with final judicial decisions, the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of all the applicants. The Court awarded EUR 4,000 to Mr   Demirhan and Mr Çelik, each, and EUR   1,500 to Mr Görsav, for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   500, to each applicant, for costs and expenses. The Court further held, unanimously, that Turkey should pay with interest the domestic judgment debts still owed to Mr   Demirhan and Mr Çelik. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 8 Lemke v. Turkey (no. 17381/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Birsel Lemke, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Balikesir (Turkey).   The case concerns the granting of permits to the company E.M. Eurogold Madencilik (subsequently renamed Normandy Madencilik A.Ş) for the operation of a gold mine in Ovacık, in the district of Bergama (İzmir), about 50 kilometres from where the applicant and his family are living.   Some of the inhabitants of Bergama called for the annulment of the permits, claiming that the cyanide leaching process used by the mining company was hazardous. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld their request on 13 May 1997.   The applicant complained about the failure by the Turkish authorities to comply with the decisions of the administrative courts annulling the permits for the operation of the gold mine. She relied in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that on 13 May 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court had concluded that the mining permit did not serve the public interest and that the safety measures which the company had undertaken to implement did not suffice to eliminate the risks involved in such an activity. However, as the Court had noted in a similar case, the closure of the gold mine in question had not been ordered until 27   February 1998, some ten months later. In that connection, the Court reiterated its previous finding that mining had been resumed in April 2001 and that in March 2002 the Council of Ministers had authorised the continuation of gold and silver mining by the company. However, it was not until 27 August 2004 that the Ministry of the Environment and Forests had issued the mining company with a favourable opinion following an environmental impact study. Therefore, without having to comment on that study, the Court noted that until its completion the authorities had deprived the procedural guarantees available to the applicant of any useful effect. It thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court further considered that the Council of Ministers’ decision amounted to a failure by the authorities to comply in practice and within a reasonable time with the decisions of the administrative courts. It thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1.   The Court found that it did not need to examine the complaints under Articles 2 and 13 and awarded Mrs Lemke EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   850 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Onaran v. Turkey (no. 65344/01)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Nevzat Onaran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   In February 2000 he was sentenced by the Military Court of the General Staff in Ankara to two months’ imprisonment and to a fine equivalent to EUR 2.30 for publishing and distributing a leaflet entitled “freedom of thought”, containing the text of a speech by Osman Murat Ülke, chairman of the “İzmir Anti-War Association”. He was accused of inciting conscripts not to perform their military service.   Subsequently, at the request of the Ankara Governor’s Office, the applicant was dismissed from his duties in the Association of Contemporary Journalists.   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged that the military court which tried him could not be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal as it was made up of two military judges and an officer. Moreover, he alleged that his conviction had breached Article 10 (freedom of expression) and that there had also been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   The Court considered it understandable that the applicant, as a civilian with no duty of loyalty to the army but having to stand trial before an exclusively military bench on charges of disseminating propaganda against military service, had had fears about appearing before judges belonging to the army. It thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1.   Moreover, the Court considered that the reasons given by the Turkish courts could not be regarded as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. It observed in particular that, whilst the comments in the impugned leaflet gave it a hostile tone as regards military service, they did not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection, and did not constitute hate speech, which, in the Court’s view, was the essential consideration. Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and that it did not need to examine separately the complaint under Article 11.   It awarded Mr Onaran EUR 2.30 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     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. The applicants in the case of Delle Cave and Corrado v. Italy also complained under Article   13 that they had had no “effective remedy” concerning their length-of-proceedings complaint. The remainder of the applicants’ complaints were declared inadmissible.   Gotthárd-Gáz Kft v. Hungary (no. 28323/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Delle Cave and Corrado v. Italy (no 14626/03)   No violation of Article 13     ***   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] .     Kurdistan Workers’ Party – an illegal organisation [3] Romberg’s sign is based on an observation of trembling and unsteadiness with eyes closed. The condition is not life-threatening and hospital treatment is necessary only when the symptoms are aggravated by a neurological disease.