CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 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 } .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   904 11.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Georgia, Italy, Luxembourg and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 Gogoladze v. Georgia (application no. 4683/03) The applicant, Nunu Gogoladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Tbilisi (Georgia). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that there had been no hearing before the Supreme Court in her case. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) Drassich v. Italy (no. 25575/04) The applicant, Mauro Drassich, is an Italian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Trieste (Italy). The case concerned the Court of Cassation’s decision to reclassify the acts allegedly committed by the applicant, in the context of examining an objection that the offence of which he was accused was time-barred. The Court of Cassation justified its dismissal of that objection on the basis of the new classification of the acts. Considering that the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence had been infringed, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b), together with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Pêcheur v. Luxembourg (no. 16308/02) The applicant, Jacques Pêcheur, is a French national who was born in 1933 and was held in Schrassig Prison (Luxembourg) when his application was lodged with the Court. The case concerned the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. The Court concluded by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be tried within a reasonable time) and unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1 right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Cengiz Polat v. Turkey (no. 40593/04) The applicant, Cengiz Polat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Edirne F-type Prison. The case concerned the applicant’s complaints about the length of his detention pending trial and of the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), and awarded the applicant 12,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Karakoyun and Turan v. Turkey (no. 18482/03) The applicants, Mehmet Nuri Karakoyun and Mehmet Salih Turan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971 and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul. The case concerned their conviction in criminal proceedings and the temporary ban on publication of their weekly newspaper. The applicants also complained that the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to them. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and awarded the applicants EUR   162 for pecuniary damage, EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) K.Ö. v. Turkey (no. 71795/01) The applicant, K.Ö., is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Adana (Turkey). She complained, in particular, that that she was beaten, threatened and raped with a truncheon by Turkish police officers. Finding insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claims, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the alleged ill-treatment. However, there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into her allegations. The Court made no award under Article 41 (just satisfaction) as the applicant had not submitted a claim within the specified time-limit. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Nurhan Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 21164/03) The applicant, Nurhan Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Izmir. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that she was unable to defend herself in person and that there was no public hearing in proceedings against her in 2002 which led to her imprisonment. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aslan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 75202/01, 9820/02 and 27942/02) In these two cases, the applicants complained about the delay by the State in payment of supplementary compensation for expropriation and the inadequacy of the default interest rate applicable to State debts. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. He also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 13 Tangredi v. Italy (no. 32747/02)     ***   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.