CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s56583728 { width:84.79pt; display:inline-block } .s899D3AE1 { width:62.8pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA40FC9E { width:135.49pt; display:inline-block } .s83E62C0C { width:86.78pt; display:inline-block } .s46EC3874 { width:290.92pt; display:inline-block } .s77830AC { width:78.14pt; display:inline-block } .s17CCD76D { width:87.48pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9410DAEE { width:162.14pt; display:inline-block } .sD10F049C { width:144.88pt; display:inline-block } .s61267FA0 { width:91.51pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   409 12.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Italy, Poland, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment 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.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 “Collectif National d’information et d’opposition à l’usine Melox - Collectif Stop Melox et Mox” v. France (application no. 75218/01) The applicant association, Collectif National d’Information et d’Opposition à l’Usine Melox - Collectif Stop Melox et Mox, is a legal person under French law, with its registered office in Menerbes (France).   It complained of an infringement of the principle of equality of arms on account of the fact that the Conseil d’Etat had not questioned the standing of a private-law company, COGEMA, to intervene in administrative proceedings concerning a decision it had not taken itself. The association relied on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ducret v. France (no. 40191/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Patrick Ducret, is a French national who was born in 1961 and lives in Rozay-en-Brie (France).   He submitted that the retrospective application of a law in the course of proceedings between himself and a bank about the repayment of a housing loan had infringed his right to a fair trial. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 50,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pititto v. Italy (no. 19321/03)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (fairness) The applicant, Mario Pititto, is an Italian national who was born in 1945 and is at present imprisoned in Milan (Italy).   He was tried in absentia on international drug trafficking charges and sentenced in July 1998 to 21 years’ imprisonment and a fine of approximately EUR 51,645. In July 2000 he was arrested in Spain, pursuant to an arrest warrant. In July 2001 he was extradited to Italy, where he attempted unsuccessfully to have the trial that had taken place in his absence reopened.   The applicant submitted that he had been convicted following unfair proceedings. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 6,299 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 Abramczyk v. Poland (no. 28836/04)   Rubacha v. Poland (no. 5608/04)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants are both Polish nationals. Bożena Abramczyk was born in 1951 and lives in Warsaw; Zbigniew Rubacha was born in 1956 and lives in Komańcza (Poland).   In May 2002 Mrs Abramczyk was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of involvement in a murder and commission of a number of offences, including armed robbery, as a member of a gang. Mr Rubacha was placed in pre-trial detention in September 2003 on suspicion of fraud.   The applicants complained, amongst other things, of the length of their pre-trial detention, namely a total of two years and nine months for Mrs Abramczyk and two years and three months for Mr   Rubacha. They relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). Mrs Abramczyk further relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 § 3 in both cases. In addition, in the Abramczyk case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings (more than five years to date) and of Article 8 on account of the fact that three letters from the applicant to the Court had been censored.   It awarded EUR 4,000 to Mrs Abramczyk and EUR 1,000 to Mr Rubacha for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded EUR 342 to Mrs Abramczyk for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   No violation of Article 2 Bakan v. Turkey (no. 50939/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Asya Bakan, Abdullah Bakan, Engin Bakan and Ruşen Bakan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969, 1988, 1988 and 1994, respectively. They live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   In 1995 their relative, Mehmet Şerif Bakan, was killed by a stray bullet fired by the security forces while he was working on a private house. According to the subsequent inquiry, the bullet which hit Mr   Bakan had been fired by a gendarme attempting to arrest a fugitive member of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation).   In April 2000 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the gendarme concerned guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and a fine. It commuted the prison sentence to a fine and stayed execution of sentence. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Assize Court held that the victim had been hit by a ricochet when a warning shot was fired. In October 2001, after the Court of Cassation had remitted the case, the Assize Court acquitted the gendarme.   Mrs Bakan, acting in her own right and on her children’s behalf, brought administrative proceedings. The administrative court refused her application for legal aid on the ground that at that stage of the proceedings, in the light of the evidence submitted to it, the action was ill-founded. It then asked Mrs Bakan to pay within 30 days court fees amounting to about EUR   170. In November 1998 the court ruled Mrs Bakan’s application not duly lodged on account of her failure to pay the court fees.   The applicants alleged that the killing of their relative had breached Article 2 (right to life) and complained of an infringement of their right of access to a court under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the large amount they were required to pay in court fees. They further relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court saw no reason to question the findings of the Diyarbakır Assize Court. It also considered that the authorities could not be accused of failing to discharge the positive obligation to take sufficient precautions to protect Mehmet Bakan’s life and found that they had carried out an investigation satisfying the requirements of Article 2. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2.   The Court went on to observe that the amount the applicant had been required to pay in court fees represented a considerable sum for the applicants, who no longer had any source of income following the death of their relative. It noted in particular that the refusal of the request for legal aid had totally deprived the applicants of the possibility of taking their case to court. In the light of those considerations, and in particular of the fact that the restriction came at the initial stage of the proceedings, the Court found that the State had not discharged its obligation to regulate the right of access to a court in a manner compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 7,500 to Mrs Asya Bakan, for herself and her children Engin and Ruşen, and EUR 1,000 to Mr Abdullah Bakan. In respect of costs and expenses, it awarded EUR 2,000 to the applicants jointly. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 2 (life) Ekrem v. Turkey (no. 75632/01)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) The applicants, Güllü Ekrem, Dilek Ekrem, Oktay Ekrem, Nuray Ekrem, Nurhak Ekrem and Mehmet Ekrem, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1984 and 1928, respectively. They live in Tunceli (Turkey).   Their relative, Süleyman Ekrem, was a minibus driver working in the Tunceli area. In the evening of 29 November 1999 he was allegedly taken away from his home at gunpoint by members of the illegal organisation the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) who wanted to make use of his vehicle. During the evening Mr Ekrem was killed in a firefight which broke out when the security forces attempted to arrest the PKK members near the village of Pirinçli, in the province of Pertek (Tunceli region).   An investigation was immediately opened. It began with an incident report, a sketch-plan of the incident scene, a full post mortem, which revealed that the victim had been hit by several bullets, and interviews with the witnesses.   The prosecuting authorities refused to bring proceedings against the gendarmes, citing the decision of the Tunceli provincial governor, who considered that they had acted in self-defence. The refusal to prosecute was set aside by the Erzincan Assize Court because it had not been established that Mr Ekrem had used a firearm. In May 2001, on an appeal by the Principal Public Prosecutor, acting at the request of the Minister of Justice, the Court of Cassation quashed the Assize Court’s judgment, with the result that the proceedings were discontinued.   The applicants alleged that their relative had been killed deliberately and complained of the lack of thoroughness of the investigation into the death conducted by the authorities. They relied on Articles 2 (right to life) and13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been no substantive violation of Article 2 as regards the death of Süleyman Ekrem, given that it had not been established that the use of lethal force had gone beyond what was “absolutely necessary” to defend any person from violence or, in particular, to effect a lawful arrest; nor had it been established beyond a reasonable doubt that needlessly excessive force had been used.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a procedural violation of Article 2 as regards Turkey’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Ekrem’s death, noting in that connection a number of shortcomings attributable to the respondent State.   The Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   13. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded EUR 15,000 jointly to the victim’s widow, Güllü Ekrem, and her children, and EUR 1,000 to Mr Mehmet Ekrem, Mr   Süleyman Ekrem’s father. It awarded the applicants EUR 3,600 jointly for costs and expenses, less EUR 701 paid in legal aid by the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Tamcan v. Turkey (no. 28150/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Kemal Tamcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Kırşehir (Turkey).   In July 1992 he was arrested by the police in Istanbul just after he had placed an explosive device in the garden of a police station.   The applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention, namely ten years, five months and 11 days, and the length of the proceedings against him – 14 years and ten months to date. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     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 8   Violation of Article 13 Falzarano and Balletta v. Italy (no. 6683/03) Gianvito v. Italy (no. 27654/03)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Gallucci v. Italy (no. 10756/02)   Violation of Article 13 Bruno Falzarano and Luigia Balletta are Italian nationals who were born in 1942 and 1947 respectively and live in San Nicola La Strada (Italy); Giuseppe Gallucci is an Italian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Noceto (Italy); Filippo Gianvito is an Italian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Torrecuso (Italy). All the above applicants complained of infringements of their rights resulting from bankruptcy proceedings.   They relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), Article 2 of Protocole No.   4 (freedom of circulation), Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Apart from Mr Gianvito, the applicants further relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In the Falzarano and Balletta and Gianvito cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Articles 8 and 13. In respect of the applicants’ costs and expenses, it awarded EUR   2,000 in the Falzarano and Balletta case and EUR 1,150 in the Gianvito case.   In the Gallucci case the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6   §   1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 8, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 13 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the restriction on the applicant’s right to bring proceedings. It awarded the applicant EUR   17,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Dodds v. the United Kingdom (no. 59314/00)   Struck out Forbes v. the United Kingdom (no. 65727/01)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Steven Dodds and Douglas I. Forbes, are British nationals who were born in 1952 and 1957, respectively. They live in London and Coventry (United Kingdom).   They complained that, because they were men, they were denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.   They relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In the Dodds case, the UK Government submitted that the application was inadmissible, since the applicant's wife had not paid sufficient National Security Contributions to be entitled to widows' benefits. Having received no response to that point from the applicant, the Court considered that he did not intend to pursue his application and decided, unanimously, to strike out the case.   In the Forbes case, the application was struck out following a friendly settlement in which 8,906.72 pounds (approximately EUR 13,168) is to be paid to the applicant. (The judgments are available only in English.)     ***   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.