CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   049 24.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Russia, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [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 3 No violation of Article 13 Milan v. France (application no. 7549/03) The applicant, Daniel Milan, is a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Nice (France).   The applicant, who was suspected of issuing death threats in connection with a terrorist undertaking, was arrested in October 2001 and placed in police custody. The case before the Court concerned the violence allegedly inflicted on the applicant by police officers on that occasion.   He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held, in particular, that the level of force used to arrest and restrain Mr Milan had been necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, and that there was nothing in the case file to support the allegations that the applicant has been tortured and subjected to ill-treatment. It also considered that he had had an opportunity to have his complaint examined by a national court and that the latter had been able fully to examine the merits of his case. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles   3 and   13. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kulcsár v. Hungary (no. 37778/04) The applicant, Jenő Kulcsár, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.   The case concerned Mr Kulcsár’s complaint that the criminal proceedings brought against him on a charge of having negligently caused a traffic accident had been excessively long. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   The Court noted that the disputed proceedings had lasted over seven years and three months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that duration was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded the applicant 4,800   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English).   Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 di Giacomo v. Italy (no. 25522/03) The applicant, Giovanni di Giacomo, is an Italian national who was born in 1954.   He is currently imprisoned in Palmi (Italy), where he is serving a life sentence for manslaughter, attempted manslaughter, aiding and abetting a mafia-type organisation and several other offences related to drug trafficking.   Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), taken together with Article   8, the applicant complained that his correspondence was monitored by the prison authorities.   The Court considered that the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence had not been “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article   8 and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of this Article. It also concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 taken together with Article   8. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ž. v. Latvia (no. 14755/03) The applicant, Ž., is a Latvian national who was born in 1959 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jēkabpils Prison (Latvia).   The case concerned in particular, the applicant’s complaints about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him on charges of rape of a female minor and unauthorised acquisition, storage and conveyance of narcotic substances. He relied on Articles   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the overall length of detention, the insufficiency of the reasons given and the inadequacy of the proceedings in connection with the decisions on continued detention. It also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   1 and awarded the applicant EUR   500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Çoban and Others v. Turkey (no. 2620/05) The four applicants, Huri Çoban, Ayşe Çoban, Nazım Çoban and Cihan Çoban, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1943, 1942 and 1985 respectively and live in Ankara.   The case concerned an action for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation brought by the applicants following the death of one of their relatives in a traffic accident which involved the liability of the public transport authority (“EGO”) and Yeşildere Town Council (Turkey).   Relying on Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about the failure to execute a judicial decision ordering the authorities to pay them compensation.   Noting, in particular, that the judgment in favour of the applicants had remained unenforced for more than four years, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (Three applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Erseven and Others v. Turkey (no. 27225/02) The applicants, İlhami Erseven, Hikmet Yıldırım, Veli   Ateş, İsmail Öztorun, Ellez Duman, İsmail Kaya, Kenan Atakul, Süleyman Çetinkaya and Bekir Arslan are all Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. They were born in 1954, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1960, 1956, 1959, 1964 and 1958 respectively.   All nine applicants were members of the   Pir   Sultan Abdal Cultural Association , a non-governmental organisation. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial), they complained that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair, in particular that they had been denied a public hearing.   The Court held unanimously that Kenan Atakul, Hikmet Yıldırım and Ellez   Duman had been prevented from exercising their defence rights properly and concluded that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in respect of those applicants. It also held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by them. They were awarded EUR   1,500, jointly, for costs and expenses. The Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible in respect of the other six applicants. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Karakaya v. Turkey (no. 11424/03) The applicant, Emin Karakaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.   Criminal proceedings were brought against him in April 2002 for possession of forbidden publications. Relying on Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Karakaya alleged, in particular, that he had not had a fair hearing, in that the Turkish courts had not held a hearing.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   13. It also held 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Babeş v. Romania (no. 11601/03) Ion v. Romania (no. 19436/04) Aldea v. Romania (no. 36992/03) In these three cases, the applicants brought actions for the return of property and the cancellation of contracts of sale concluded by the State. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Babeş , it also held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lesnova v. Russia (no. 37645/04) Nagovitsyn v. Russia (no. 6859/02) Parfenenkov v. Russia (no. 12115/03) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning the State’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or not at all.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Can and Others v. Turkey (no. 29189/02) Korkmaz v. Turkey (no. 35758/03) Saripinar v. Turkey (nos 42756/04 and 42795/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gög & Kolsuzoğlu and Agbayır v. Turkey (nos. 10332/02 and 25805/02) In these four cases, the applicants complained of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation which had been awarded to them. The Court found the above violations.   In the cases of Can and Others , Korkmaz and Saripinar , it held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaint under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). In the case of Gög & Kolsuzoğlu and Agbayır , it held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaint under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Karabulut v. Turkey (no. 56015/00) This case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint 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) and declared the applicant’s complaints under Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and   7 (no punishment without law) inadmissible.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Bunčič v. Slovenia (no. 42852/02)     ***   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.