CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 27 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .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   140 27.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN MARCH   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following two hearings in March 2008 :     Wednesday 19 March: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber [1]   Salduz v. Turkey (application no. 36391/02)   The applicant, Yusuf Salduz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   The case concerns the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant while in police custody and the fact that he did not have access to the public prosecutor’s submissions to the Court of Cassation.   On 29 May 2001, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having participated in an illegal demonstration in support of the imprisoned leader of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal organisation). He was also accused of hanging an illegal placard on a bridge.   On 30 May 2001 a police statement was taken from the applicant in which he admitted the charges. The applicant subsequently denied the content of his police statement, alleging that it had been extracted from him under duress. The same day, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.   On 5 December 2001 Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the PKK, under Article   169 of the Criminal Code and Section   5 of Law   no.   3713 and sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment. His sentence was later reduced to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment as he was under 18 at the time of the offence.   On 27 March 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion calling for the judgment to be upheld and, on 10   June 2002, the Court of Cassation confirmed the judgment.   Relying on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Salduz complains about the unfairness of proceedings against him, namely that the public prosecutor’s submissions were not communicated to him and that he was denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody.   In its Chamber judgment of 26   April 2007, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s written opinion, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered. Mr   Salduz was awarded 1,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. The Court further held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   3   (c) on account of the lack of legal assistance during police custody.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.     Wednesday 26 March: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia (no. 14939/03 )   The applicant, Sergey Aleksandrovich Zolotukhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Voronezh (Russia).   The case concerns administrative and criminal proceedings brought against Mr Zolotukhin in 2002 for disorderly conduct.   On 4 January 2002 Mr Zolotukhin was arrested for bringing his girlfriend into a military compound without authorisation and taken to the Voronezh Leninskiy District Police Station. According to a police report, the applicant, who was drunk, behaved insolently, used obscene language and attempted to escape. On the same day Gribanovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of “minor disorderly acts” under Article 158 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to three days’ detention.   Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, under Article   213   §   2   (b) of the Criminal Code, concerning his disorderly conduct before the police report was drawn up and, under Articles 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, concerning his threatening and insulting behaviour during and after the drafting of that report. He was taken into custody on 24 January 2002. On 2 December 2002 the same district court found the applicant guilty of the charges under Article 319 of the Criminal Code. He was, however, acquitted of the charges under Article 213 as the court found that his guilt had not been proven to the standard required in criminal proceedings. The applicant was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment in a correctional colony and ordered to follow treatment for alcoholism. Relying on Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), Mr   Zolotukhin complains that, after having already served three days’ detention for disorderly conduct as a result of administrative proceedings against him, he was detained and tried again for the same offence in criminal proceedings.   In its Chamber judgment of 7   June 2006, the Court found that the applicant had been prosecuted under Article 213 of the Criminal Code for essentially the same offence, namely that of disturbing public order, of which he had been previously convicted under Article 158 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The Court therefore concluded that the Russian authorities, fully aware of the applicant’s previous conviction for the same offence, had allowed a duplication of criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   4 of Protocol No.   7.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [2]   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) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.