CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   58 29.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Georgia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) No violation of Article 14 Kidzinidze v. Georgia (application no. 69852/01) The applicant, Levan Kidzinidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Germany. He was a member of the Georgian Parliament between 1995 and 1999 and lived and worked in the Autonomous Republic of Ajaria.   The case concerned Mr   Kidzinidze’s allegation, in particular, that the domestic courts had not examined his applications against the Ajarian local authorities and that, as a result, he had been a victim of political discrimination. He relied on Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the length of one of the sets of proceedings brought by the applicant, which was currently pending at domestic level, was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It also found that the domestic courts’ refusal to examine another of his applications amounted to a denial of justice. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. It further held that there had been no violation of Article   14 and that no separate examination of the complaint under Article   13 was required. The applicant was awarded 4,400   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 6 (fairness) Csősz v. Hungary (no. 34418/04) The applicants, Barnabás, Krisztián and Márk Adrián Csősz, are a father and his two sons. They are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1951, 1985 and 1988, respectively, and live in Székesfehérvár (Hungary).   In the 1990s, Krisztián Csősz had surgery to his leg at Pécs University Teaching Hospital and was left disabled. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length and unfairness of the ensuing proceedings they had brought against the hospital seeking compensation for medical malpractice. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 concerning the length of the proceedings, which had lasted almost eight years, and no violation of that Article concerning the fairness of the proceedings. It awarded each applicant EUR   3,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   550, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bălan v. Moldova (no. 19247/03) The applicant, Pavel Bălan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1938 and lives in Chişinău.   In 1985 Mr Bălan received author’s fees for a photograph he had published in the album Poliptic Moldav . The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the refusal of the Moldovan courts to compensate him for the use, without his agreement, of that photograph by the Ministry of Internal Affairs as a background for national identity cards. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court found that there had been an interference with Mr Bălan’s property rights and that it was not proportionate to the aims pursued. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.).   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Gracki v. Poland (no. 14224/05) Kubik v. Poland (no. 12848/03) Rochala v. Poland (no. 14613/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Popławski v. Poland (no. 28633/02) The applicants are four Polish nationals: Jarosław Gracki who was born in 1966; Piotr Kubik who was born in 1967; Zbigniew Popławski who was born in 1957; and, Dariusz Rochala who was born in 1965. They all live in Poland.   Mr   Gracki was arrested in March 2003 on suspicion of theft and burglary; Mr   Kubik in January 2001 on suspicion of burglary; Mr   Popławski in September 1998 on suspicion of homicide; and, Mr   Rochala on suspicion of, in particular, attempted murder.   Relying, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants alleged that the length of their detention on remand had been excessive. The applicant in the case of Popławski also complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article   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 in all four cases, Mr   Kubik’s detention on remand having lasted one year and 11   months, Mr   Gracki’s two years and nine months, Mr   Rochala’s three years and Mr   Popławski’s over four years. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in the case of Popławski . In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   2,000 to Mr   Gracki and Mr   Rochala, EUR   1,000 to Mr Kubik, and EUR   6,000 to Mr   Popławski. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Stępniak v. Poland (no. 29366/03) The applicant, Dariusz Stępniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Bytom (Poland).   Mr Stępniak was remanded in custody in October 2002 on charges related to organised crime. The case concerned censorship of his correspondence with the Court, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court found that there had been an interference with the applicant’s correspondence in that two letters sent to him by the Court’s Registry had been censored and that that interference was not “in accordance with the law”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 and awarded Mr   Stępniak EUR   500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 13 Fahrettin Aydın v. Turkey (no. 31695/02) The applicant, Fahrettin Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He is a history teacher.   Relying, in particular, on Articles   11 (freedom of assembly and association) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Aydın alleged that he was transferred to a school in Giresun (Turkey) in reprisal for his trade union activities and that he had no effective remedy with which to challenge that decision.   The Court noted that it had examined similar cases on previous occasions and had found violations of Article   13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy under Turkish law whereby the applicant could have challenged the administrative act which had ordered his transfer to another city. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 and awarded Mr   Aydın EUR   500 for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Struck out Celia v. the United Kingdom (no. 66293/01) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint under Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No   1 (protection of property) that, as a widower, he had been refused Widow’s Bereavement Allowance or its equivalent. The Court decided unanimously to strike out the application out of its list of cases.     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) Klára Kiss v. Hungary (no. 31754/04) Rózsa v. Hungary (no. 22671/04) Karadavut v. Turkey (no. 17604/04)     ***   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.