CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 février 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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   103 12.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Moldova, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12   Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Jouan v. Belgium (application no. 5950/05) The applicant, Dominique Jouan, is a French national who was born in 1964 and lives in Beauvais-sur-Tescou (France).   The prosecuting authorities in Charleroi (Belgium) placed him under judicial investigation on suspicion of money laundering and ordered the preventive attachment of his bank account. The investigation continued in France and the attachment was maintained. The applicant complained under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights that his bank account in Belgium had been blocked for an unreasonable length of time and that he had not had access to his case file.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the three-year period during which the applicant’s bank account had been blocked exceeded a “reasonable time” and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. It held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article   6 §   1 concerning access to the case file and that the finding of a violation was in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr   Jouan, and awarded him 2,500   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 Flux v. Moldova (No. 4) (no. 17294/04) The applicant, Flux, is a Moldovan newspaper based in Chişinău.   The case concerned the newspaper’s conviction for defamation of the leader of the Communist Faction of Parliament, Victor   Stepaniuc, in 2003. The applicant newspaper relied on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   The Court noted, in particular, that the impugned statements were made by a journalist in a debate on an issue of public interest, and that the plaintiff was a high-ranking politician. It concluded that the interference did not correspond to a pressing social need and that it was not “necessary in a democratic society”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10 and awarded the applicant newspaper EUR   100 for pecuniary damage, EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Just satisfaction Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 14385/04) The applicant, Oferta Plus S.R.L., is a company incorporated in Moldova. In a judgment of 19 December 2006 the Court held that there had been a violation of Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and   34 (right of individual petition), and of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   In today’s judgment it held unanimously that Moldova was to pay the applicant company EUR   2,500,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   25,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10,104 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Pankiewicz v. Poland (no. 34151/04) The applicant, Władysław Pankiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Lubin (Poland).   The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in March   2003 on suspicion of uttering threats. The case concerned his complaint that he was unlawfully detained in a regular detention centre pending his transfer to a psychiatric hospital and about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He relied in particular on Article   5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court considered, in particular, that even though the delay of two months and 25   days in the admission of the applicant to a psychiatric hospital might not seem at first glance particularly excessive, it could not be regarded as acceptable. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1 concerning Mr   Pankiewicz’s detention in an ordinary detention centre and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Pyrak v. Poland (no. 54476/00) The applicant, Bogusław Pyrak, is a Polish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Brochów (Poland).   The case concerns his allegations that the length of his detention, on charges of embezzlement, was excessive and that his appeal against the prolongation of his pre-trial detention was not examined “speedily”. He relied on Article   5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court found that the grounds given by the Polish authorities to justify the overall period of the applicant's detention could not be considered relevant and sufficient. It also found that the authorities had failed to act with all due diligence in handling the applicant's case and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3. It further observed that the time taken to examine the applicant's request for release, two months and 15 days, did not satisfy the speediness requirement of Article   5 §   4. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 4 and also awarded Mr   Pyrak EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ali Göktaş v. Turkey (no. 9323/03) Apaydin v. Turkey (no. 502/03) Faruk Deniz v. Turkey (no. 19646/03) Kılıç and Korkut v. Turkey (nos 25949/03 and 25976/03) The six applicants are Turkish nationals.   Suspected of belonging to an illegal organisation, the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front), they were arrested and remanded in custody. They were subsequently acquitted and took action seeking compensation for the damage sustained as a result of their deprivation of liberty. Under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) they complained, in particular, that they had been denied a hearing and had not been notified of the expert’s report in the proceedings before the Assize Court or of the opinion of the Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy), the applicants also complained of the loss sustained as a result of the failure to pay, or the late payment of, the damages they had been awarded.   The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the lack of a hearing in the domestic proceedings and the failure to notify the applicants of the opinion of the Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation. It held that there was no need to examine separately the complaint concerning the failure to notify them of the expert’s report. It also found that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, and held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   13. In the Apaydin case the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 was declared inadmissible in respect of the applicant Fulya Apaydin. The Court awarded the applicants the total amounts of EUR   6,144 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   8,225 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Kılıçoğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 50945/99) The 11 applicants are Turkish nationals.   They were all members of HADEP (the People’s Democracy Party) at the material time. They were arrested and placed in police custody in February   1999 as “suspects”   during operations in the Diyarbakır region to prevent potential incidents following the arrest of Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan. No proceedings were brought against them. Relying on Article   5 §§   1   (c), 3   (right to liberty and security) and   4 (right to take proceedings to determine the lawfulness of detention), they complained that their arrest had been illegal. They also complained about the length of time for which they had been held in police custody and the lack of a remedy enabling them to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.   The Court considered that the applicants’ detention for nine and ten days respectively before they were brought before the Principal State Prosecutor and released could not be accepted as necessary. It also noted that it had already found that the supervision by the domestic courts of the lawfulness of detention under Law   no.   466, on the compensation of persons unlawfully deprived of their liberty, did not meet the requirements of Article   5 §   4. It accordingly found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §§   3 and   4 and held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint, under Article   5 §   1, that the arrest had not been lawful. It awarded EUR   3,500 to Mr   Kılıçoğlu and EUR   3,000 to the other applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     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) Kyzioł v. Poland (no. 24203/05) Báňas v. Slovakia (no. 42774/04)     ***   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.