CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 juillet 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 } .s3C6D7979 { width:28.12pt; display:inline-block } .sBD511D18 { width:68.79pt; display:inline-block } .sC0C74E72 { width:78.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFD32BCAF { width:94.81pt; display:inline-block } .sDB00410C { width:132.14pt; display:inline-block } .s8474D67B { width:82.14pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s11B45B56 { width:82.79pt; display:inline-block } .sB587DA96 { width:167.49pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sCDA4AE1F { width:30.13pt; display:inline-block } .sB347D098 { width:96.79pt; display:inline-block } .s739C7412 { width:63.18pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s39E2B37B { width:102.15pt; 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   530 24.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Finland, France, Georgia, Italy, Lithuania, and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Brichet and Bouzet v. Belgium (application no. 44899/98)   Friendly settlement The applicants are Belgian nationals who were born in 1946 and 1950, respectively. When the application was lodged, Mr Brichet in Saint-Ghislain and Mrs Bouzet lived in Saint-Servais (Belgium).   They are the parents of Elisabeth Brichet, who disappeared without trace on 20 December 1989 at the age of 12. In 2004 a married couple, Mr Fourniret and Ms Olivier, were arrested and charged, among other offences, with the rape and murder of the applicants’ daughter. As Mr Fourniret had been charged with other offences committed in French territory, the Belgian proceedings against Mr Fourniret and his wife were reported to the French authorities. On 24   July 2006 the French investigating judge in Charleville-Mézières ordered that the Belgian and French proceedings be joined.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the length of the proceedings and the restrictions on a civil party’s access to the case file.   The case has been struck out of the list following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive 17,500 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ekholm v. Finland (no. 68050/01) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) The applicants, Ingegerd Ekholm, and her son, Stefan Ekholm, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1922 and 1951. They live in Esbo (Finland) but also own a holiday home on the Åland islands.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the proceedings they had brought in 1991 before the South Åland Municipal Health Board requesting that the neighbours of their holiday home remove the dog kennels from their common boundary due to disturbance from the barking. Ultimately, in April 2006 the Health Board ordered the applicants’ neighbours not to use the kennels and, if they decided to keep dogs on their property after that decision became legally binding, they had to build new kennels which would not cause a disturbance. The proceedings are still pending.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the length of the proceedings and that the Health Board had failed to comply with judicial decisions. They further alleged that the noise from the dogs’ barking had prevented them from using or selling their property, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the proceedings having so far lasted almost 16 years. It also held unanimously that there had been a further violation of the same article because the Health Board had failed to comply with judicial decisions for almost ten years or, more tellingly, until such time as the Court had communicated the applicants’ case to the Government of Finland. Given that finding, the Court held unanimously that it was unnecessary to rule on the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Mrs   Ekholm was awarded EUR   5,000 for pecuniary damage and she and her son were awarded EUR 10,000, jointly, for non-pecuniary damage. They were awarded EUR 5,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Baucher v. France (no. 53640/00)   Violation of Article 6 § § 1 and 3 (b) The applicant, Gilles Baucher, is a French national who was born in 1963 and lives in Paris.   At the relevant time, he was marketing director for France Quick, a fast-food company. The applicant was accused of misleading advertising and deception as to the quality of a product, as a result of observations made by two inspectors from the Department for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention (“the DGCCRF”) in a Quick restaurant in Besançon. He was accused of having used advertising likely to mislead [the public] concerning the use of Swiss Emmental cheese. In a judgment delivered on 23 April 1999 he was found guilty and ordered, in particular, to pay a fine of about EUR 3,000, which was suspended.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 3 (b) (right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence), and on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), the applicant complained that no reasons had been given for the criminal court’s judgment before the expiry of time-limit for appealing and that, as a result, his right to due process had been infringed. He considered that he had thus been prevented from lodging an informed appeal, which had deprived him of the right of review by a higher tribunal.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and held that no separate question arose under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Baumet v. France (no. 56802/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Gilbert Baumet, is a French national who was born in 1943 and lives in Pont-Saint-Esprit (France). He is the mayor of the municipality of Pont Saint Esprit and has held, among other positions, the post of president of the county council of the Gard département .   The applicant was accused of wrongdoing by the Languedoc Roussillon regional audit board when it carried out a financial and management audit of three associations which received subsidies from the Gard département : the county office for sports, the Gard committee for pensioners (activities, planning and training) and the county committee for Gard culture. At the close of three sets of proceedings concerning the three associations, the applicant was ordered to pay fines (totalling about EUR 6707) for wrongly assuming public accountant functions.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that there had been an infringement of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms before the Court of Audit on account of the failure to communicate certain documents in the case file.   The Court, which found that the proceedings before the domestic courts had not been fair, concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also held that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and awarded him EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mgueladze v. Georgia (no. 74909/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Shalva Mgueladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Tbilisi.   The applicant claimed that he had moved, with his mother, into his aunts’ flat in 1975. He said that he had lived there for 22   years and had contributed to repayment of the “share”. One of the applicant’s two aunts was a member of a residential housing cooperative and was repaying the building costs (“the share”) to the cooperative. On 18 May 1993 the aunt concluded a contract with the cooperative, privatising the flat, and had it certified by a notary. On 10 July 1993 she signed a will in the presence of another notary, bequeathing the privatised flat, after her death, to the applicant’s niece. Following the aunt’s death, the applicant brought proceedings against his niece in August 1996, asserting his rights as owner of the flat. The applicant’s niece argued that she was the heir to the entire disputed flat and attempted, in particular, to show that the applicant had acquired no rights to this property. In 2000 the domestic courts found that the applicant had not submitted the relevant documents to demonstrate that he or his mother had contributed to payment of the “share” and concluded that the aunt had acquired the right to become the sole owner of the property, and to dispose of it freely.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained, among other things, that the appeal court and the Supreme Court had reached their decisions of 15 March and 1   December 2000 with no regard to the domestic legislation applicable when signing privatisation contracts. Under the same article, he also complained that Mr G.Th., a former judge who had occasionally dealt with the case in 1998, had been involved in the case as a lawyer for the other party at a cassation hearing in November 1999. The applicant also alleged that the domestic courts had not guaranteed his right to respect for his home, protected by Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Considering that the applicant had been effectively heard by the domestic courts on 15 March and 1 December 2000, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. Holding that Mr G.Th.’s involvement at the hearing in question was open to criticism but did not infringe the fairness of the proceedings taken as a whole, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that regard. It also found that the complaint under Article 8 was inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mason and Others v. Italy (no. 43663/98)   Just satisfaction The six applicants, Elio Mason, Olga Manente, Mario Mason, Giuseppina Mason, Bruna Spolaor and Franco Mason, are Italian nationals who were born in 1953, 1921, 1950, 1958, 1927 and 1952, respectively. They live in Spinea (Italy). They owned plots of land in Spinea; in 1980 the authorities took physical possession of those plots of land and expropriated them in 1981.   In a judgment of 17 May 2005 (press release no. 266 – 2005), the Court had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the excessive burden resulting from the lack of final compensation for the expropriation of the applicants’ land. It had also held that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   In the judgment on just satisfaction, delivered today, the Court concluded unanimously that the respondent State was to pay the applicants EUR 3,000,000   for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Baškienė v. Lithuania (no. 11529/04) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) The applicant, Aldona Baškienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Šiauliai (Lithuania).   In a divorce settlement of 1995, Ms Baškienė was entitled to shares in two companies owned by her ex-husband. On 17 May 1996 she brought civil proceedings in which she requested that she be awarded the value of the shares in one of the companies. However, criminal proceedings for fraud and embezzlement had been brought against the director and head accountant of that company and so the domestic courts, considering that the applicant’s interests as a shareholder were at risk, joined the two proceedings. Ultimately, on 7 October 2003 the domestic courts convicted the director and head accountant of forgery and negligent bookkeeping and decided that they had not been accused or tried for offences which could have caused damage to the applicant’s interests as a shareholder. As a result the applicant’s civil claims were not examined, it having been found that she could always pursue her claims by way of separate civil proceedings.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Ms   Baškienė complained about the length and unfairness of the proceedings.   The Court noted that Ms Baškienė’s civil claims had been joined to the criminal proceedings at the initiative of the domestic courts. Therefore the applicant could not have reasonably been expected to bring proceedings independently of the criminal case to which her initial claims had been joined. The Court was particularly struck by the fact that the applicant had had to wait almost seven years and five months to finally be told that the courts had no longer considered it appropriate to examine her civil claims along with the criminal case. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the absence of an effective right to a court, and a further violation of the same article, concerning the excessive length of the proceedings. Ms Baškienė was awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court declared that there was no need to examine separately the remainder of the application. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Ali Esen v. Turkey (no. 74522/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Ali Esen, is a Turkish national born in 1957 and lives in Uşak (Turkey).   The case concerned Mr Esen’s complaint about the length of criminal proceedings in which a car he had bought had been confiscated from him because it had a fake registration plate. The car was returned to him in October 2002. The proceedings are still pending.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the proceedings concerning the confiscated car having lasted more than seven years for one level of jurisdiction. Mr Esen was awarded EUR 4,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Demirel and Others v. Turkey (no. 75512/01)   Violation of Article 13 The ten applicants, Hünkar Demirel, Evrim Alataş, Laleş Arslan, Mehmet   Burtakuçin, Zeynal Akgül, Abdulvahap Taş, Azad Özkeskin, Bozkur Mevlüt, Ragıp Zarakolu and Hıdır Ateş are all Turkish nationals.   Ms Demirel, Mr Zarakolu and Mr Mevlüt are, respectively, the publisher, editor and legal representative of the daily newspaper Yedinci Gündem (“Seventh Order of the Day”), which appeared for the first time on 23 June 2001. Mr Ateş is the legal representative of the company responsible for the newspaper’s publication and distribution, and the other applicants are reporters working for the newspaper. On 27 June 2001 the Governor of a region in which a state of emergency had been imposed, issued an order prohibiting, without limit of time, the launch,   distribution and sale of Yedinci Gündem in the region concerned.   Relying in particular on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that the prohibition on distributing the daily newspaper Yedinci Gündem in the region under emergency rule amounted to an unjustified interference in the exercise of their right to communicate information or ideas.   They also complained that there was no effective remedy enabling them to challenge the relevant regional Governor’s decision.   Noting, in particular, that the disputed ban could not be considered as “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. It also noted that there was no remedy available under domestic law in order to challenge the measure taken by the Governor of the region under emergency rule and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13. It also held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the applicants’ other complaints. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Guzel v. Turkey (no. 6586/05)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Hasan Celal Güzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Ankara. He is a former minister and member of parliament.   At the relevant time the applicant was president of the Renewal Party ( Yeniden Doğuş Partisi ). Between 1997 and 1998 several sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him on account of his public declarations, particularly against the President of the Turkish Republic. On 23 June 1997 he stated in the daily newspaper Yeni Günaydın : “If you are President of the Republic, behave like you are the President of the Republic”.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that his criminal convictions and the proceedings brought against him had infringed his right to freedom of expression, in spite of the stays of proceedings applied in his case. He relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court considered that the repeated interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, taken as a whole, had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. It stated that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and awarded him EUR 5,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Mehmet Şah Çelik v. Turkey (no. 48545/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Mehmet Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 47043/99)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants are two Turkish nationals. Mehmet Şah Çelik, was born in 1979 and Mehmet Yavuz in 1965. At the time of their applications to the Court, Mr Şah Çelik was detained in Batman Prison and Mr Yavuz in Diyarbakır Prison.   Mr Şah Çelik was arrested and placed in custody in December 1994 and Mr Yavuz in November 1993. They were suspected of being members of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdish Workers’ Party). Both were convicted as charged: Mr   Çelik was sentenced to eight years and four months’ imprisonment in December 1998 and Mr Yavuz to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment in March 1999.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained, in particular, about the length of their detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against them.   The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of Mr Çelik’s detention on remand having lasted almost four years and Mr Yavuz’s having lasted over five years and four months. The Court held that there had been a further violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the proceedings against Mr Şah Çelik having lasted four years and 11 months for two levels of jurisdiction. It declared inadmissible Mr Yavuz’s complaint in that respect. The Court awarded for non-pecuniary damage EUR 4,500 to Mr   Şah Çelik and EUR   3,400 to Mr Yavuz. The latter was also awarded EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same finding as in similar cases raising the same issue under the Convention:   Ulaş Çelik v. Turkey (no. 47115/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   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 Yıldız and Others v. Turkey also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The remainder of the application in the case of De Saedeleer v. Belgium was declared inadmissible.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) De Saedeleer v. Belgium (no. 27535/04) Kat İnşaat Ticaret Kollektif Şirketi v. Turkey (no. 74495/01) Talipoğlu v. Turkey (no. 64236/01)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Yıldız and Others v. Turkey (no. 6749/03)   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.