CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .s8B08D021 { width:256.88pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s8C5186BF { width:160.82pt; display:inline-block } .s796481D2 { width:86.77pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC78BADAF { width:243.49pt; display:inline-block } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s927039E3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s18748BE6 { width:84.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s6A80C6A6 { width:89.48pt; display:inline-block } .s60CC3B5D { width:150.13pt; display:inline-block } .s47645AFF { width:14.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA306BFD7 { width:98.15pt; display:inline-block } .s2C1E8AB7 { width:17.45pt; display:inline-block } .s51C4CFB0 { width:200.25pt; display:inline-block } .s17D9D81F { width:81.49pt; display:inline-block } .s7AAAD92B { width:272.63pt; display:inline-block } .s233A1912 { width:67.91pt; display:inline-block } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sC5E38B05 { width:280.17pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2992ED93 { width:63.08%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDC3D8F8A { width:19.82%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF673D503 { width:17.1%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s782E7FC0 { width:63.08%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC3ACB8E1 { width:19.82%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5062CC34 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:17.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s8CB6B851 { width:17.1%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEAC79953 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:19pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s61904ECB { width:63.08%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8BFE6EA1 { width:19.82%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD2EDD4C2 { width:17.1%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E73683E { width:84.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF8F84D87 { width:76.14pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s235E8D0E { width:288.18pt; 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   448 26.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Moldova, Serbia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2]   can also be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tocono and Profesorii Prometeisti v. Moldova (application no 32263/03) The applicants are S.R.L. Tocono and the Profesorii Prometeişti Foundation, founders of the first private high school in Chişinău, which opened in 1991.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the unfairness of proceedings in which registration of the school was disputed. They alleged, in particular, that a judge on the panel of the Supreme Court of Justice was not impartial because his son had been expelled from the school and had threatened retaliation.   They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights was of the view that, under Article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was up to the judge in question to inform the parties of a possible incompatibility and that his impartiality was therefore open to doubt. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court further held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the further complaint under this article that the Supreme Court had failed to give sufficient reasons in its judgment. The Court also held that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court declared inadmissible the complaint under Article 11.   The Court awarded the applicants 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,080 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 8 Tomić v. Serbia (no. 25959/06)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Slađana Tomić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Smederevo (Serbia). She was married until July 2001 to P.V., with whom she had a daughter, A.V., born in 1998.   The case concerned Ms Tomić’s complaint that her ex-husband had refused to comply with a judgment of 25 February 2004 granting her custody of A.V. and child maintenance and that the authorities had failed to enforce that judgment. As a result, she had been denied all access and contact with her daughter for the past two years.   She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Noting that, during certain periods in 2005 and from June 2006 to February 2007, no enforcement attempts had been made and that enforcement proceedings had been formally postponed until March 2007 when Ms Tomić lost custody of A.V., the Court considered that the Serbian authorities had not taken sufficient steps to execute the final judgment of February 2004. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court further noted that the authorities had not sufficiently taken into account the long-term interest of Ms Tomić and her daughter in developing a bond together and had allowed P.V. to use the judicial system to his advantage to allow for the passage of time to reverse the applicant’s custody rights. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 8. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy concerning the length of the enforcement proceedings.   Ms Tomić was awarded EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   950 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Akkılıç v. Turkey (no. 69913/01)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Davut Aslan v. Turkey (no. 21283/02)   İnal v. Turkey (no. 12624/02) The applicants are all Turkish nationals. Fikri Akkılıç, Mevlüt Akkılıç and Abubekir Akkılıç, who were born in 1961, 1978 and 1956 respectively and live in Çermik (Turkey), and Davut Aslan, who was born in 1972 and is in detention in Gaziantep (Turkey),   were arrested in February 2000 and September 2001 on suspicion of belonging to the illegal armed organisation Hizbullah. Ramazan İnal, who was born in 1976 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey), was arrested in 2001 in connection with a fraud investigation concerning a university entrance examination.   In these three cases the applicants complained, in particular, of the length of their time in police custody: ten days in the case of Akkılıç and more than seven days in the cases of Davut Aslan and İnal . They relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in all three cases. In the case of İnal the Court held that it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the complaint under Article 5 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,750 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. In the case of Akkılıç the Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 and awarded the three applicants EUR   3,000 each for non-pecuniary damage. As Mr Aslan had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that no award should be made to him under that head. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Artun and Güvener v. Turkey (no. 75510/01)   Violation of Article 10 The applicants, Meral Tamer Artun and Eren Güvener, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1946 and 1945, respectively. They live in Istanbul. Ms Artun is a journalist on the daily newspaper Milliyet and Mr Güvener is its editor.   In August 1999 Milliyet published two articles by Ms Artun accusing the authorities, and in particular the President of Turkey, Süleyman Demirel, of negligence for failing to take the necessary measures before and after the earthquake of 17 August 1999, in which tens of thousands of citizens died. The applicants were found guilty of insulting the President and were given prison sentences in September 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained that they had not had a fair trial. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), they submitted that their sentence had infringed their right to freedom of expression.   The Court reiterated, in particular, that the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence was compatible with journalists’ freedom of expression only in exceptional circumstances. It considered that in the present case there had been no justification for sentencing the applicants to a term of imprisonment. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 6,000   jointly for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Bayhan v. Turkey (no. 75942/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Emin Bayhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   The applicant complained of the length (five years and six months) of the proceedings he had brought with a view to obtaining compensation for spending almost a year in pre-trial detention before being acquitted in 1999. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Çarkçı v. Turkey (no. 7940/05)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Önder Çarkçı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is currently detained on remand in Kandıra Prison (Turkey).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length of his detention on remand following criminal proceedings brought against him in 1997 on charges of robbery and homicide. The proceedings are apparently still pending.   He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the proceedings having lasted for approximately ten years and eleven months. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considered that there was no call to award him any sum on that account. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Çelik and Others v. Turkey (no. 74500/01)   Two violations of Article 6 (fairness) The six applicants are Turkish nationals who live in Tunceli (Turkey).   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained of the unfairness of the proceedings that resulted in their conviction in December 2000 for aiding and abetting the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) in that the applicants had not appeared before the Malatya State Security Court and a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to them. It awarded the six applicants EUR 10,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   İzmirli v. Turkey (no. 30316/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Hilmi İzmirli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul.   The case concerned Mr İzmirli’s complaint about the length and unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him following his arrest in September 1980 on suspicion of being a member of Dev-Yol, an illegal armed organisation. Ultimately, he was convicted in October 2006 of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced to life imprisonment. The proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation.   He relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Noting that the proceedings had so far lasted for more than twenty-five years, of which twenty years are within the scope of the Court’s consideration, it found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Court awarded Mr İzmirli EUR 24,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kapan and Others v. Turkey (no. 71803/01)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) The applicants, Selman Kapan, Ekmel Uzunkaya and Abdullah Halas, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1958, 1961 and 1965, respectively. At the time of their application they were detained in Eskişehir Prison (Turkey).   The applicants complained, in particular, that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and of the charges against them and that their conviction had been based solely on confessions extracted from them by torture. They relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) on account of the use of confessions extracted by the police as a basis for the applicants’ conviction and that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints under Article 6. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them EUR 2,000 jointly 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.)     No violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment) Timur v. Turkey (no. 29100/03)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Mustafa Timur is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Van (Turkey).   The applicant asserted that in February 2003 he had been beaten by police officers whom he had approached for information about the arrest of a member of his family. The medical report drawn up on the date of the incident noted the presence of a large number of bruises on his back, a graze on his right hand and bruising on his chest, left side and legs. He lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers concerned, alleging assault. His complaint gave rise to a finding that there was no case to answer in April 2003.   The applicant submitted that he had been beaten by the security forces and complained of the lack of an investigation into his allegations. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Having regard to the evidence produced before it, the Court found it impossible to establish whether the injuries sustained by the applicant had been inflicted by the police as he maintained. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 as regards his allegations of ill-treatment.   The Court further considered that the investigation that had been conducted had not been thorough and effective as required by Article 3. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation.   The Court held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 5 and 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ülger v. Turkey (no. 25321/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Muharrem Ülger, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Ankara.   The case concerned Mr Ülger’s complaint about the length of civil proceedings he had brought against a Turkish company which had employed him from October 1996 to May 1998 in a construction yard in Russia. He also complained that the judgment awarding him compensation had not been served on him, the court fees not having been paid by the defendant company, and could therefore not be enforced.   He relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that holding the applicant responsible for the payment of the court fees before he could receive a copy of the judgment had restricted his right of access to a court and had interfered with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Mr Ülger was awarded EUR 10,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. The Court further held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Friendly settlement Yedikule Surp Pırgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı v. Turkey (nos. 50147/99 and 51207/99) The applicant is a foundation under Turkish law, established during the time of the Ottoman Empire. Its articles of association are in conformity with the provisions of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne concerning the protection of former foundations providing public services for religious minorities.   The applicant foundation complained that its title to certain properties had been declared void. It contended that Turkish legislation and its interpretation by the national courts deprived foundations belonging to religious minorities within the meaning of the Treaty of Lausanne of all capacity to acquire immovable property. This incapacity, in its view, amounted to discrimination in relation to other foundations.   The applicant foundation relied, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Turkish Government have undertaken to return the relevant properties in their current state to the applicant foundation and to pay it EUR 15,000 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Belge v. Turkey (no. 33434/02)   Çakır v. Turkey (no. 13890/02) Kizir and Others v. Turkey (no. 117/02) Turhan Atay and Others v. Turkey (no. 56493/00) The applicants are Turkish nationals. They complained of delays in paying them additional compensation for expropriation. They further alleged that the sums they had received did not take account of the actual rate of inflation between the time when the amounts had been determined and the date of payment. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Mr Belge also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously in all four cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to examine separately Mr Belge’s complaint under Article 6. In the cases of Çakır, Kizir and Others and Turhan Atay and Others the Court considered that the judgments constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded them the overall amounts set out below, expressed in euros. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses   Belge v. Turkey   7,800   1,000 Çakır v. Turkey 85 1,000 Kizir and Others v. Turkey 7,700 - Turhan Atay and Others v. Turkey 3,924 500   Kaymaz v. Turkey (no. 6247/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Yeniay v. Turkey (no. 14802/03)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicants, Sadiye Kaymaz and Necdet Yeniay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977 and 1950 and live in İzmir and Bursa (Turkey), respectively.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to them. Mr   Yeniay also complained about the length of the proceedings against him, amounting to approximately five years and five months.   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unfairness of the proceedings in issue. In the case of Yeniay it also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded them EUR   1,000   each for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) İldan v. Turkey (no. 75603/01)   Kırancı v. Turkey (no. 76400/01) Veyisoğlu v. Turkey (no. 27341/02) Erdoğan Kırancı is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). Ferda İldan is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and is currently being held in Midyat Prison (Turkey). Zülfikar Veyisoğlu was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants alleged, in particular, that the courts which had tried and convicted them had not been “independent and impartial”. Mr Veyisoğlu also relied on Article 5 § 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As Mr Kırancı had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that no award should be made to him under this head. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Ms İldan and awarded her EUR 1,250   for costs and expenses. Mr Veyisoğlu was awarded EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. The Court held that there was no need to examine separately the remainder of Mr   Veyisoğlu’s complaint.   (The İldan and Kırancı v. Turkey judgments are available in French; the Veyisoğlu judgment is available 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.