CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 janvier 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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   009 8.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Georgia, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 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.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 Mumladze v. Georgia (application no. 30097/03) The applicant, Neli Mumladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Zestafoni (Georgia). The case concerned, in particular, Ms Mumladze’s complaint that the Supreme Court had not held an oral hearing in September 2002 following her cassation claim with regard to eviction proceedings against her. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Jucys v. Lithuania (no. 5457/03) The applicant, Pranas Jucys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Birštonas (Lithuania). Mr Jucys was arrested in December 1995 on suspicion of smuggling mink furs. He was ultimately acquitted in 1997. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the civil proceedings (over eight years and six months) to obtain compensation for the furs which had been auctioned by the State during the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention and that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). The applicant was awarded 25,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   810.94 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Jakubiak v. Poland (no. 36161/05) Kołodziński v. Poland (no. 44521/04) The applicants are two Polish nationals: Janusz Jantar Jakubiak who was born in 1967 and lives in Łowicz (Poland) and Leszek Kołodziński who was born in 1949 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland). The cases concerned, in particular, censorship by the Polish authorities of the applicants’ correspondence with the Court. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) in both cases and awarded EUR   500 to Mr   Jakubiak and EUR   1,000 to Mr Kołodziński in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Marczuk v. Poland (no. 4646/02) No violation of Article 5 § 3 Raban v. Poland (no. 24254/03) The applicants are two Polish nationals: Mariusz Marczuk and Sławomir Raban who were born in 1972 and 1962, respectively. They are both currently serving prison sentences in Włodawa Prison for armed robbery in the case of Mr Marczuk and extortion in the case of Mr   Raban. The cases concerned the applicants’ complaints that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) in the case of Marczuk and awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 in the case of Raban . (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Pietrzak v. Poland (no. 38185/02) The applicants, Wiesław Pietrzak, and his wife, Halina Pietrzak, are Polish nationals who were born in 1943 and 1951, respectively, and live in Gdańsk (Poland). The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that land which they owned in the suburbs of Gdańsk had been designated in 1988 for expropriation at some point in the future in order to build a road. As a result, they could not make use of their property or obtain compensation. The 1988 local development plan expired on 31 December 2003 when, under a new law, it became possible for the applicant to apply for planning permission. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in respect of the period up until 31 December 2003 and awarded Mr Pietrzak EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 P.P. v. Poland (no. 8677/03) The applicant, P.P., is an Italian national who lives in Torri di Quartesolo (Italy). In 1991 the applicant married a Polish national, K.P., and they had two daughters, born in 1992 and 1996. They lived in Italy. In the summer of 1999 K.P. took her daughters on holiday to Poland and never returned. The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint of the failure of the Polish authorities to enforce decisions with respect to the return of his daughters to Italy and his visiting rights. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and awarded the applicant EUR   7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,000 for costs and expenses. It also held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s other complaints under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 Ak v. Turkey (no. 16006/02) The applicant, Fehmi Ak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerned the applicant’s complaints of torture and ill-treatment allegedly inflicted while he was in police custody as a person suspected of belonging to an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security). It further held that it was not necessary to examine separately a complaint under Article 5 § 3, and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. The Court awarded Mr Ak EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Eriş v. Turkey (no. 28268/02) The applicant, Ali Eriş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerned Mr Eriş’s complaint about having been ill-treated when arrested by the police in September 1999 and the length (more than six years and seven months) of the criminal proceedings against him on charges of taking part in an illegal demonstration. The Court found that the evidence in the case file did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that excessive force had been used to arrest the applicant and declared, unanimously, that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) was inadmissible. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and awarded the applicant EUR   900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Violation of Article 13 No violation of Article 14 Fevzi Saygılı v. Turkey (no. 74243/01) The applicant, Fevzi Saygılı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. He is the owner of a daily newspaper Günlük Evrensel . The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the ban on his newspaper of 23 July 2001 authorised by a state-of-emergency law in the Turkish provinces. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) but no violation of 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The applicant was awarded EUR   2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Nacaryan and Deryan v. Turkey (nos. 19558/02 and 27904/02) The applicants, Yeran-Janet Nacaryan and Armen Deryan, are Greek nationals who were born in 1945 and 1948 respectively and live in Greece. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that the Turkish courts had refused to recognise their status as heirs to an estate including immovable property. The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and unanimously that the question of the application of Article 41 was not yet ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.) Revision Resul Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 74318/01) The case concerned 12 Turkish nationals. Following the death of one of the applicants, Mehmet Temelkuran, their representative asked for the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case (5 December 2006) to be revised. The Court decided unanimously to revise that judgment and awarded the heirs of Mr Temelkuran, jointly, the amounts originally awarded to him. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Saygılı and Others v. Turkey (no. 19353/03) The applicants, Fevzi Saygılı, Nizamettin Taylan Bilgiç and Serpil Kurtay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1972 and 1978 respectively and live in Istanbul. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that they had been ordered to pay damages for publishing in the daily newspaper Evrensel (Universality) articles concerning people who had disappeared in Turkey. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10 (freedom of expression) and made a joint award to the applicants of EUR   2,500 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 10 Yurdatapan v. Turkey (no. 70335/01) The applicant, Mehmet Şanar Yurdatapan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had been convicted for distributing a leaflet which contained statements from a conscientious objector and that his case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Boyle v. the United Kingdom (no. 55434/00) The applicant, John Boyle, is a British national who was born in 1974 and lives in London. He was serving as a gunner with the 12 th Regiment of the Royal Artillery stationed in Germany when, on 2 November 1999, he was arrested following an allegation by a woman that she had been raped. He was subsequently charged by his commanding officer (“CO”), under section 70 of the Army Act 1995, with indecent assault and placed under close arrest. On 22 February 2002 he was released and posted to another regiment. Following a trial by the Army General Court Martial in May 2001 he was acquitted. The applicant complained that his detention on remand pending trial had been unlawful, particularly concerning the role of his first CO. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) in respect of the lack of independence and impartiality of the CO who charged the applicant. It held, however, that there had been no violation of Article   5   § 3 with respect to his detention under a second CO from 12 November 1999 to 22   February 2000. The Court held unanimously 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 English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation Article 13 Viola and Others v. Italy (no. 7842/02) This case concerned disqualifications imposed on the applicants when they were declared bankrupt. The Court unanimously found the above violations. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bulava v. Moldova (no. 27883/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Erdem and Others v. Turkey (no. 82/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicants’ complaint about delays in payment of additional compensation for expropriation of land. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Williams v. the United Kingdom (no. 63478/00) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that, as a widower, he had been refused Widowed Mother’s Allowance. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Karyağdı the Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Błaszczyk v. Poland (no. 22305/06) Wilczkowska and Others v. Poland (no. 28983/02) Karyağdı v. Turkey (no. 22956/04)     ***   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.