CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .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   837 27.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 26 Chamber judgments, none of which 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 (length) No violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 14 No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Hamer v. Belgium (application no. 21861/03) The applicant, Judith Hamer, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1955 and lives in Amsterdam. The case concerned a dispute over a house belonging to her. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), and no violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together, or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It awarded the applicant 5,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sárközi v. Hungary (no. 40354/04) The applicant, Pálné Sárközi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length of criminal proceedings against her for larceny. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and awarded the applicant EUR   9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 8 Asciutto v. Italy (no. 35795/02) The applicant, Santo Asciutto, is an Italian national who was born in 1964. He is currently serving a life sentence in Terni (Italy) for homicide and other offences connected to the activities of a Mafia-type criminal organisation. The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaints about the special prison regime to which he is subject, entailing restrictions on outside contacts, such as the requirement to give evidence in court proceedings by video link. He also complained of delays in the examination of his appeals against ministerial decisions and an infringement of his right to respect for his correspondence. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), on account of the delays complained of, and a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. It held that the findings of a violation constituted in themselves just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, and awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Zagaria v. Italy (no. 58295/00) The applicant, Vincenzo Zagaria, is an Italian national who was born in 1956. He is currently being held in Novare Prison (Italy). The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint that it was impossible for him to communicate confidentially with his lawyer. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair hearing) and that it was not necessary to examine whether there had also been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). It further 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   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 David v. Moldova (no. 41578/05) The applicant, Gheorghe David, was a Moldovan national who was born in 1943 and lived in Chişinău. He died in July 2007. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about having been detained in a psychiatric hospital against his will. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and awarded the applicant’s sister EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Ursu v. Moldova (no. 3817/05) The applicant, Mihai Ursu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Peresecina (Moldova). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of murder. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and   3 (right to liberty and security) and awarded him EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Dzitkowsi v. Poland (no. 35833/03) The applicant, Zygmunt Dzitkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Sopot (Poland). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length of his detention on remand for armed robbery. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). It further held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) concerning an interference with the applicant’s correspondence with the Court. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Luczak v. Poland (no. 77782/01) The applicant, Richard Luczak, is a French national who was born in 1950. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had been refused admission to the farmers’ social security scheme because he was not Polish. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and awarded him EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 ZIT Company v. Serbia (no. 37343/05) The applicant, the ZIT Company, is based in Šabac (Serbia). The case concerned the length of enforcement proceedings with respect to judgments in favour of the applicant. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of 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), and awarded the applicant company EUR   1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Barışık and Alp v. Turkey (nos. 29765/02 and 31420/06) Dağli v. Turkey (no. 28888/02) The applicants are Turkish nationals who live in İzmir.   Necati Barışık was born in 1975 and Yüksel Alp and Ahmet Dağli were born in 1963. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the unfairness of criminal proceedings against them. The Court held unanimously that, in both cases, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 3 Çelepkulu v. Turkey (no. 41975/98) The applicant, Mehmet Sıddık Çelepkulu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Konya (Turkey). He was taken into police custody in 1997 on suspicion of aiding and abetting the illegal organisation PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The case concerned the applicant’s about the circumstances surrounding his detention in police custody, in particular its length. He also alleged that he had been ill-treated by gendarmes. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and no violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). It awarded the applicant EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 6 § 1 Meral v. Turkey (no. 33446/02) The applicant, Bayram Meral, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Ödemis (Turkey). The case concerned a disputed plot of land. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the failure to provide the applicant with a copy of the opinion of State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court, and no violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to provide him with a copy of the opinion of the reporting judge at the same court. It held that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Yakut and Others v. Turkey (no. 61856/00) The three applicants, Medine Yakut, Sebiha Zengin and Hüseyin Utanç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949, 1956 and 1977 respectively. In 2000 they were arrested and taken into police custody for being members of the illegal organisation PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The case concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaint that their detention in police custody had been unlawful. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention) and awarded the applicants an aggregate sum of EUR   7,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Yayan v. Turkey (no. 9043/03) The applicant, Tayfun Yayan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of criminal proceedings against him for robbery at knifepoint. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Esposito v. Italy (no. 35771/03) This case concerned the disqualifications imposed on the applicant after his bankruptcy.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Cemal Ölmez v. Turkey (no. 7404/03) This case concerned, among other things, the applicant’s complaint that he had not been sent a copy of an opinion of Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation in proceedings against him.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Iwankowski and Others v. Belgium (no. 6203/04) Károlyné Balogh v. Hungary (no. 1107/04) Kolláth v. Hungary (no. 15509/05) Wójcicka- Surówka v. Poland (no. 33017/03) Matia v. Slovakia (no. 33827/03) Sika v. Slovakia (No. 4) (no. 44508/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Raway and Wera v. Belgium (no. 25864/04) Sobczyński v. Poland (no. 23128/03) Jovićević v. Serbia (no. 2637/05)     ***   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.