CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sE29B3D96 { width:68.23pt; display:inline-block } .s80D91CF4 { width:394.26pt; display:inline-block } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; 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   811 20.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar       Chamber judgments concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 35 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Karanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 39462/03) The applicant, Duško Karanović, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1928 and lives in Sarajevo.   In 1987 Mr Karanović was granted an old-age pension from the pension fund of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1992 the applicant left Sarajevo and moved to what is now known as Republika Srpska. He received his pension from that entity. In 2000 he returned to Sarajevo, which, by that time, had become part of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and attempted to receive his pension from that entity. Those attempts being unsuccessful, he complained to the Human Rights Chamber. In a decision of 10 January 2003 the Human Rights Chamber held that the applicant was discriminated against in his enjoyment of the right to social security as guaranteed by Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The applicant still receives his pension from the Republika Srpksa. Pension legislation has not yet been harmonised between the two entities and pensions are generally lower in the Republika Srpksa than in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the decision of 10 January 2003.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that four years had passed since the decision of the Human Rights Chamber had become final and the applicant had still not been compensated in full or transferred to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s pension fund. The Court therefore concluded that Mr Karanović’s right of access to a court had been impaired and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court further held that Bosnia and Herzegovina was to secure the enforcement of the Human Rights Chamber’s decision in that it had to transfer the applicant to its pension fund and pay him 2,000 euros (EUR). In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded Mr   Karanovic EUR   1,500. He was granted EUR 850 in legal aid under the Court’s legal-aid scheme. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 8 A.B. v. Poland (no. 33878/96) The applicant, A.B., is a Polish national who was born in 1952.   The case concerned a dispute between the applicant and his ex-wife about custody of their daughter. The applicant abducted his daughter at Warsaw airport in September 1995. Proceedings were brought against him. In particular, he was ordered by the Warsaw District Court in December 1995 to return the child immediately to her mother; he also had his parental authority withdrawn by the regional court in April 1998.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained, in particular, that the proceedings had been unfair and that his right to respect for his family life had been infringed.   The Court shared the view of the Polish Government that the applicant had enjoyed all the guarantees of a fair hearing. It further considered that the decision to withdraw A.B.’s parental authority appeared to have been based on relevant and sufficient grounds. It observed that enforcement of the decision ordering the child to be returned to its mother had been justified in the interests of justice and protection of the rights of a third party (in this case the child’s mother). The Court noted that the Polish courts had acted with the aim of complying with international law and fulfilling the country’s obligations under the Hague Convention. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 and Article   8. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Feliciano Bichão v. Portugal (no. 40225/04) The applicant, João Carlos Feliciano Bichão, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1951 and lives in Paris.   In 2001 a dispute arose between the applicant and the mayor of the municipality of São Salvador (Portugal) concerning the ownership of a path running along a plot of land belonging to the applicant. The mayor took the view that it was a public path and decided to have work carried out on it. In July 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the mayor for misappropriation of immovable property. He lodged an appeal and a constitutional appeal, but the Portuguese courts ultimately found against him, taking the view, in particular, that the objective conditions for the offence had not been met.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that he had not received copies of the public prosecutor’s memorials in connection with either his appeal or his constitutional appeal.   The Court reiterated that the notion of a fair hearing implied the right for the parties to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed. In the present case the public prosecutor, in his memorials, had adopted a position on the merits of the appeals lodged by the applicant. The Court noted that these documents, no copies of which had been sent to the applicant, had clearly been aimed at influencing the position of the judges examining the case. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Feliciano Bichão EUR 2,500 in respect of costs and expenses, less the EUR 850 already paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Algür and Others v. Turkey (no. 483/02) The four applicants, Mr Şakir Algür, Mr Hasan Atak, Mr Hüsnü Onuk and Mr İbrahim İzer, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1958, 1978, 1956 and 1966 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   They were arrested in December 1994 and convicted in 2002 and 2003 of membership of the illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party).   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 of the excessive length of their detention pending trial and of the criminal proceedings against them.   The Court noted that Mr Algür and Mr İzer had spent a total of five years and seven months in detention pending trial; Mr Onuk had been detained for almost six years and Mr Atak for six years and eleven months. It considered that the Turkish courts had not provided reasons for keeping the applicants in detention for so long and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It further noted that the proceedings concerning all four applicants had lasted for over eight years. It considered that period to be excessive and in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement, and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,150 each to Mr   Algür and Mr   İzer, EUR 4,500 to Mr Onuk and EUR 6,350 to Mr Atak. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 2   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Amaç and Okkan v. Turkey (nos. 54719/00 and 54176/00) The 12 applicants are Turkish nationals who all live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   On 15 July 1997 a mine made from a cooking gas cylinder exploded on a road in the village of Aygün, killing a number of the applicants’ relatives. No one has ever been charged in connection with the explosion.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complained that the Turkish State was responsible for the death of their relatives. They also complained that the authorities had not conducted an effective investigation in order to identify the persons who had laid the mine. In addition, they considered that they had been deprived of their right of access to a court, alleging that they had been unable to file a claim for compensation owing to the excessive costs of the proceedings and the fact that their application for legal aid had been rejected. They relied in this regard on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court observed that the allegation that the authorities had laid a mine on the road was based on speculation rather than on reliable evidence. It also noted that conditions in the area had not been such as to call for mine-clearing operations by the authorities or for particular precautions to be taken. In the circumstances, the Court concluded that the Turkish State had not been responsible for the death of the applicants’ relatives. It added that the investigation had not been devoid of effect and that the authorities could not be said to have taken no action with regard to the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had been killed. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2. As to the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court observed that it had already dealt with cases involving similar circumstances to the present case, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Article in question. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Aygün and Others v. Turkey (nos. 5325/02, 5353/02 and 27608/02) The applicants are 14 Turkish nationals who were dismissed in May 1999 by their employer, Diyarbakır Sur Municipality.   The case concerned the authorities’ failure to pay judgment debts with regard, in particular, to outstanding salaries and severance pay owed to the applicants.   They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Seven of the applicants reached a friendly settlement agreement with the municipality. One of those applicants received his full award and waived any potential rights and claims concerning his application to the Court. Consequently, the Court declared inadmissible his application as well as the other six applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considered that the other six applicants still had claims under Article 6 § 1.   In respect of the seven applicants who had not reached friendly settlements, the Court concluded that the Turkish authorities had failed, without giving any convincing justification, to comply with judgments. Those seven applicants had therefore been prevented from receiving money to which they had been entitled and, accordingly, the Court held unanimously that they had been a victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   Furthermore, the Court found that the municipality’s alleged financial difficulties had not been a convincing argument for the Turkish authorities to have failed for a number of years to take the necessary measures to comply with final judicial decisions and 13 of the applicants had therefore been a victim of a violation of Article 6 §   1.   The Court held unanimously that the State was to pay, with interest, the outstanding amounts of the judgment debts still owed to the seven applicants who had not reached friendly settlements. Thirteen of the applicants were awarded a total of EUR   32,880 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Güzel (Zeybek) v. Turkey (no. 6257/02) The applicant, Asiye Güzel (Zeybek), is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.   In 1997 she was taken into police custody at Istanbul police headquarters and then detained pending trial, in connection with an operation being conducted against the illegal organisation MLKP/K.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained, in particular, of the excessive length of her detention pending trial.   The Court noted that the applicant had spent five years and three months in detention pending trial. It considered that the Turkish courts had not given reasons for detaining the applicant for so long and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It awarded Mrs Güzel EUR 3,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Hasan Döner v. Turkey (no. 53546/99) The applicant, Hasan Döner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul.   In March 1999 Mr Döner was arrested while a demonstration was taking place in Istanbul. The case concerned his complaints that he was ill-treated on being arrested and throughout his subsequent detention in police custody and that the length of the criminal proceedings against him for throwing a Molotov cocktail were excessive.   He relied, in particular, on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court considered that the evidence in the case file did not demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that any excessive force had been inflicted on Mr Döner during his arrest or that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while being held in police custody. The Court therefore declared this part of the application inadmissible.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the criminal proceedings against the applicant having so far lasted more than eight years and seven months. Mr Döner was awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 13 Kizilkaya v. Turkey (no. 50690/99) Ürküt v. Turkey (no. 50290/99) The applicants, Ahmet Kızılkaya and Ali Ürküt, are Turkish nationals who were both born in 1959 and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complained of a decision by the provincial governor in a state of emergency region to transfer them to a job in a different area. They alleged, among other things, that they had been transferred because of their trade union activities.   The Court declared the application admissible with regard to the complaint under Article 13 and inadmissible with regard to the other complaints. As Turkish law did not provide any remedy enabling the applicants to challenge the decision to transfer them, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13. It awarded EUR 500 to Mr Ürküt for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Yiğit and Others v. Turkey (nos. 4218/02, 4260/02, 4262/02 and 4271/02) The four applicants, Mr Baran Yiğit, Mr Enver Yiğit, Mr Serhat Yiğit and Mr Şeyhmus Aydın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1982, 1968, 1978 and 1984 respectively, and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   Suspected of belonging to the illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), they were arrested and taken into police custody in July 2001 following searches at their respective homes.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the excessive length of their detention in police custody and the lack of an effective remedy by which to obtain compensation. With the exception of Şeyhmus Aydın, they also relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), complaining that they had not had an effective remedy by which to challenge their detention in police custody.   The Court observed that Serhat Yiğit had spent nine days in police custody, while Baran Yiğit and Enver Yiğit had both been detained for eight days. It could not accept that it had been necessary to hold the applicants for so long before they were brought before a judge. In the case of Şeyhmus Aydın, it noted that it was impossible, on the basis of the evidence in the file, to establish at what time his detention in police custody had ended, but considered that the requirement of promptness had not been satisfied. Furthermore, the Court was not convinced that Turkish law had afforded the applicants a right of compensation for the alleged violations. The Court further considered that any appeal lodged by Serhat, Baran and Enver Yiğit would have had little prospect of resulting in their release. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 5 § 4 (with the exception of Şeyhmus Aydın) and of Article 5 § 5. It awarded the applicants a total of EUR   9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Gault v. United Kingdom (no. 1271/05) The applicant, Lesley Ann Gault, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1967 and lives in Lisburn (Northern Ireland).   On 19 May 2000 the applicant’s husband was murdered. Ms Gault was subsequently charged with aiding and abetting her former lover, Mr G, in the murder. She was released on bail pending trial and she remained at home with her children, triplets who were six years’ old at the time.   Ms Gault remained on bail throughout the first and second trials. On 20 November 2002, following the first trial, Mr   G was convicted of murder but the jury failed to agree on a verdict concerning the applicant. On 20 March 2003, following the second trial, Ms Gault was convicted of murder by a majority verdict and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland subsequently quashed that conviction and ordered a re-trial. The applicant made a request for bail; prosecution did not object. However, on 9 July 2004, that request was refused on the ground that she had been convicted of murder by a majority verdict and that the retrial would take place soon. She remained in custody until 6 September 2004 when she was granted bail by the third trial judge. The applicant was acquitted in October 2004.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Gault complained of the decision to place her in detention on remand from 9 July to 6 September 2004 pending her third trial.   The Court noted that there was a lack of clarity as to what the reasons had been for detaining Ms   Gault. Notwithstanding, it examined those reasons as could be discerned from the material available. The Court recalled that the matter of the promptness of a re-trial was not a relevant reason for refusing bail: Article 5 § 3 did not give judicial authorities a choice between bringing an accused person to trial within a reasonable time and granting that person provisional release pending trial. It was not persuaded either by the Government having inferred that there had been a greater risk of the applicant absconding before the third trial because of the decision of March 2003. Indeed, it was significant that the prosecution had made no objections to the applicant’s request to be released on bail pending the third trial.   The Court therefore concluded that the reasons given by the Court of Appeal for placing Ms Gault in detention on remand pending the third trial could not be considered relevant and sufficient and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. Given that finding, the Court further held that no separate issue arose under Article 8. Ms Gault was awarded EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,020 for costs and expenses, less EUR 850 already received in legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kaya v. Turkey (no. 46118/99) Kaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 56370/00, 69879/01 and 73757/01) Sever and Others v. Turkey (no. 9879/02, 16232/02 and 27175/02) Yardimci and Others v. Turkey (no. 5605/02, 5639/02, 5649/02, 6339/02, 9600/02, 46393/02 and 16404/02) In the above four cases the applicants complained of delays in paying them the additional compensation for expropriation which had been awarded to them.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mehmet Peker v. Turkey (no. 49276/99) The applicant in this case was arrested and subsequently convicted of aiding and abetting the illegal organisation the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). It rejected the complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) as being out of time, and the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) as manifestly ill-founded. It ruled that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Tok and Others v. Turkey (no. 37054/03, 37082/03, 37231/03 and 37238/03) The applicants in these cases complained of the non-enforcement of judicial decisions awarding them compensation for redundancy.       Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Anderson v. United Kingdom (no. 73652/01) Crilly v. United Kingdom (no. 12895/02)     Struck out Kettle v. United Kingdom (no. 63584/00) Norbury v. United Kingdom (no. 67120/01) The above four cases concerned the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that, as widowers, they had been refused Widowed Bereavement Allowance or its equivalent.     Friendly settlement Cairney v. United Kingdom (no. 45773/99) Dobb v. United Kingdom (no. 63388/00)     Struck out Goswami v. United Kingdom (no. 62521/00) McCrory v. United Kingdom (no. 62775/00)     Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fallon v. United Kingdom (no. 61392/00) Woods v. United Kingdom (no. 60274/00)   No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8 Steff v. United Kingdom (no. 63476/00) The above seven cases concerned the applicants’ complaints under 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) that, because they were men, they had been denied social security and tax benefits equivalent to those received by widows.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicant in the case of Olcar v. Turkey also alleged that he had no effective remedy concerning his length-of-proceedings complaint, in breach of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Borody v. Hungary (no. 44885/04) Popović v. Serbia (no. 38350/04) Erden v. Turkey (no. 27719/02) Keman v. Turkey (no. 68446/01) Köseoğlu v. Turkey (no. 73283/01)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Olcar v. Turkey (no. 76096/01)     ***   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.