CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   872 4.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] , with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Denée v. Belgium (application no. 31634/03) The applicants, Joseph and Philippe Denée, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1936 and 1961 respectively and live in Flemalle (Belgium). They complained that the length of criminal proceedings against them, on charges of forgery and using forgeries, had been excessive. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and awarded 24,000   euros   (EUR) to Joseph Denée and EUR   20,000 to Philippe Denée for non-pecuniary damage, and the sum of EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 Papalia v. Italy (no. 60395/00) The applicant, Domenico Papalia, is an Italian national who was born in 1945 and is at present imprisoned in Carinola (Italy). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping with a view to extortion and for aggravated murder. The applicant complained of an infringement of his right of access to a court, his right to respect for his correspondence and his right to an effective remedy before a national authority. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). It further held that those findings constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded him EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Pasculli v. Italy (no. 36818/97) The applicant, Raffaele Pasculli, is an Italian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Foggia (Italy). The case concerned a plot of land he owned which was subject to an expropriation order issued in connection with a housing scheme. In a judgment of 17 May 2005 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and that the question of just satisfaction was not yet ready for decision. In today’s judgment it held by six votes to one that Italy was to pay the applicant EUR   800,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   65,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Sojka v. Poland (no. 15363/05) Szwec v. Poland (no. 45027/06) The applicants, Paweł Sojka and Mariusz Szwec, are Polish nationals who were born in 1943 and 1965 and live in Krasnystaw (Poland) and Opole (Poland) respectively. Mr Sojka was prosecuted on a charge of attempted murder, Mr Szwec for offences committed as a member of an organised gang. Both cases concerned complaints that the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention had been excessive. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and awarded each of the applicants EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Warsiński v. Poland (no. 38007/02) The applicant, Artur Warsiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Bytów (Poland). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about censorship of his correspondence by the domestic authorities during his detention on remand between April 2002 and May 2004 on charges of drug trafficking. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 34 (right of individual petition). Mr Warsiński was awarded EUR   1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Volkov v. Russia (no. 64056/00) The applicant, Oleg Konstantinovich Volkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lived in Irtyshskiy (Russia). He is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence following his conviction for notably murder. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his trial had not been fair as it had not been open to the public. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Özgür and Çamlı v. Turkey (no. 13903/02) The applicants, Yunus Özgür and Mustafa Çamli, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975 and 1956 and live in Istanbul and Adana (Turkey) respectively. They alleged that they had been insulted and beaten by prison staff on their arrival at Sincan Prison (Turkey). They further complained that there had been no effective investigation into their complaints. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) as regards the allegations of ill-treatment, but a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation. It awarded the applicants EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for 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 10 Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 11369/03) The applicant company, Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş., is a radio and television station which used to broadcast in Istanbul (Turkey). The case concerned in particular the 365-day suspension of the company’s operating licence on account of a song which it broadcast. The Radio and Television Council ( Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu – the RTÜK) took the view that the words of the offending song infringed the principle set forth in section 4(g) of Law no. 3984, prohibiting the broadcasting of material likely to incite the population to violence, terrorism or ethnic discrimination, and of a nature to arouse feelings of hatred among them. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and that it was not necessary to examine separately a complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). It awarded the applicant company EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,200 for costs and expenses. (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 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cogut v. Moldova (no. 31043/04 The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicants’ favour in good time.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mehmet Zülfi Tan v. Turkey (no. 31385/02) In the case above the applicant complained in particular of the failure to provide him with a copy of the opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation in criminal proceedings against him.   No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Geen v. the United Kingdom (no. 63468/00) The above case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, because he was a man, he had been denied a pension equivalent to that received by widows.     ***   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.