CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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   64 31.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Russia, Turkey and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 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.     Violation of Article 34 Ryabov v. Russia (application no. 3896/04) The applicant, Andrei Yuryevich Ryabov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in the Vologda Region (Russia).   In December 2002 Mr Ryabov was charged with the rape of T., who was seven years old at the time. He was convicted as charged in January 2003 and sentenced to 12   years and six months’ imprisonment.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, at no stage of the proceedings, had he been given the opportunity to examine a witness who had made a written statement about the rape or the expert who had drawn up the medical report, in breach of Article 6   § 3   (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also complained about a harassment campaign against one of his legal representatives, Mrs Moskalenko, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the Russian authorities had acknowledged and afforded redress for the breach of Article 6   § 3   (d) by ordering a re-trial of the applicant’s case and therefore declared that part of the applicant’s complaint inadmissible. It further found that the steps taken by the Russian Government to inquire about the financial arrangements between the applicant and Mrs Moskalenko, including contacting her law office and the applicant himself in prison, had lacked any basis in law or in fact and had specifically targeted the applicant’s representative in order to prevent her from participating in the Strasbourg proceedings. It therefore held unanimously that there had been an interference with the exercise of the applicant’s right of individual petition and that Russia had failed to comply with its obligations under Article   34. The applicant only having made a claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction) in connection with his complaint under Article   6, the Court decided not to make any such award. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 4 and 5 No violation of Article 3 Abdulkadir Aktaş v. Turkey (no. 38851/02) The applicant, Abdulkadir Aktaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and is currently being held in Elazığ Prison (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested on 6 October 2002 on suspicion of being a member of the armed fundamentalist organisation Hizbullah and was taken into police custody. On 11 October 2002 he was placed in pre-trial detention in Diyarbakır Prison. A few hours after being admitted to the prison, he was taken back to the security police headquarters for further questioning. The applicant did not return to the prison until 21 October 2002. The medical examination carried out on the date of his arrest revealed various injuries and marks on his body, but the seven subsequent reports stated that there were “no signs of assault”, apart from a few scabs. A complaint by the applicant alleging ill-treatment resulted in a decision not to prosecute.   The applicant alleged that he had been detained in breach of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security). He also complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), of the treatment to which he had been subjected during his arrest and while in police custody.   The Court noted that it had previously examined a similar case and found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in that the applicant had been handed back to the police for questioning after being placed in pre-trial detention, thus circumventing the applicable legislation on the periods that could be spent in police custody, and on account of the lack of effective judicial review. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4 and did not consider it necessary to carry out a separate examination of the complaint under Article 5 § 3. The Court lastly noted that in the circumstances of the case the applicant could not rely on the legislation providing for the award of compensation for unlawful arrest or unwarranted detention in breach of Article 5 §   5. With regard to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the Court observed that the scabs and swelling observed on his body did not imply that there had been gratuitous use of disproportionate force during the arrest. As to the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the Court noted that the medical reports did not mention any signs of ill-treatment on his body, and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3. The Court awarded the applicant 9,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 No violation of Article 14 Albayrak v. Turkey (no. 38406/97) The applicant, Mehmet Emin Albayrak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. He started to work as a judge in Adana in February 1993.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about disciplinary proceedings brought against him in 1995 for, among other things, reading the alleged PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) legal publication Özgür Ülke and watching Med TV, an alleged PKK-controlled television channel. As a result he was transferred to another jurisdiction. He ultimately resigned from his post in 2001 and now works as a lawyer. He also alleged that he had been discriminated against on account of his Kurdish origin. He relied on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court found, in particular, that there was no reference in the case file to suggest that the applicant’s conduct had not been impartial and that the Turkish authorities had attached considerable importance to the fact that the applicant had followed or attempted to follow PKK-associated media. It therefore considered that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been based on sufficient reasons and had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10. It further found no evidence to prove that the applicant had been discriminated against on account of his ethnic origin and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   14. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mehmet Reşit Arslan v. Turkey (no. 31320/02) The applicant, Mehmet Reşit Arslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and was serving a prison sentence in Diyarbakır Prison at the time of his application to the Court.   The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that he was ill-treated in police custody following his arrest in April 1993 on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him were excessive, in breach of Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 as it had not been submitted within the six month time-limit. However, it found that the criminal proceedings against the applicant, which had lasted approximately eight years, did not correspond to the “reasonable time” requirement, and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. The applicant did not submit a claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction) and, consequently, the Court considered that there was no call to make any such award. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) and (fairness) Özel and Others v. Turkey (no. 37626/02) The applicants, Armagan Özel, Cem Çakar, Hakkı Köse and Abbas Mert, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1950, 1964, 1960 and 1963 respectively and live in Istanbul.   The first three applicants, who are doctors, were convicted by the Istanbul General Staff Court of issuing false certificates exempting conscripts from military service. Mr Mert was convicted of obtaining a false certificate exempting him from military service.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that the proceedings against them had been excessively long and unfair.   The Court found that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ case was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It further considered that the applicants’ doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the General Staff Court were objectively justified. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded EUR   4,800 to Mr Çakar and Mr Özel, EUR   6,000 to Mr Köse and EUR   3,000 to Mr   Mert for non-pecuniary damage. (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 Plekhova v. Russia (no. 42752/04) Arsenenko v. Ukraine (no. 6128/04) Dedukh v. Ukraine (no. 14394/04) Fedortsi v. Ukraine (no. 10616/02) Prypiyalo v. Ukraine (no. 75801/01) Shaga v. Ukraine (no. 39846/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Konotenko v. Ukraine (no. 7725/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Luts v. Ukraine (no. 4208/03) The Court found the above violations in these eight cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or not at all.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gerçek v. Turkey (no. 67634/01) Rasim Aydın v. Turkey (no. 62597/00) In these two cases the applicants complained in particular of the lack of independence and impartiality of Istanbul State Security Court in criminal proceedings against them. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). In the case of Rasim Aydın it declared the complaint under Article 7 (no punishment without law) inadmissible.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Uysal v. Turkey (no. 51964/99) In this case the applicant complained of the damage he had sustained after compensation he had been awarded for expropriation had lost value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate, and of the delay by the authorities in paying additional compensation for expropriation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and awarded the applicant EUR   475,000 for pecuniary damage.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Maznyak v. Ukraine (no. 27640/02) In this case the applicant complained in particular of the quashing of a final judgment by means of an extraordinary procedure. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     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) Rabia Tan and Others v. Turkey (no. 8095/02) Tunca v. Turkey (no. 17408/04) Fandralyuk v. Ukraine (no. 22775/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Karimov v. Ukraine (no. 69435/01)     ***   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.