CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 avril 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 } .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   254 8.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Malta, Moldova, Poland, Slovenia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 Chamber judgments, none of which is 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Grădinar v. Moldova (application no. 7170/02) The applicant, Nina Grădinar, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1956 and lives in Comrat (Moldova).   The applicant’s husband, together with two others, was accused of murdering a police officer in September 1995. In May 1997 Chişinău Regional Court acquitted all three suspects. On appeal a retrial was ordered. The applicant, whose husband had in the meantime been shot dead, asked for the case to be reheard in order to prove her husband’s innocence. Ultimately, the Moldovan courts found the applicant’s husband guilty as charged. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the unfairness of her deceased husband’s re-trial.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that it had serious reservations about a legal system which had allowed the trial and conviction of a deceased person, given the obvious inability of that person to defend himself. In any event, the Court considered that the domestic courts, in their final decisions, had accepted self-incriminating statements by the accused as “decisive evidence” but had ignored certain fundamental issues, such as the fact that the accused had an alibi for the presumed time of the murder. The Court therefore concluded that the proceedings against the applicant’s husband had been unfair as his conviction had not been sufficiently justified by the Moldovan courts. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court made no such award. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova (no. 21151/04) The applicant, Megadat.com SRL, was a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova. At the relevant time, it was the largest internet provider in Moldova.   The case concerned the applicant company’s complaint that its telecommunications licences were invalidated in October 2003 because it had failed to notify the relevant regulatory board of a change of address. The applicant company also complained that it was the only one out of a list of 91   companies to which such a severe sanction was applied. Its administrative complaint against the regulatory board was ultimately dismissed by the Moldovan courts in March 2004. As a result, the applicant company’s licences were withdrawn in July 2004 and it was forced to close down. It relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court noted that the applicant company had informed the State Registration Chamber and the Tax Authorities of its change in address in November 2002 and the regulatory board in May 2003. Furthermore, the applicant company had never been given an opportunity to appear or explain its position before the regulatory board and, in the appeal proceedings, the case had been decided in its absence. Indeed, the Moldovan courts’ examination of the case had been formalistic and appeared to have been carried out without balancing the general issue at stake with the sanction applied. The Court therefore found that the proceedings had been arbitrary and that the applicant company had had a disproportionately harsh measure applied to it. Also bearing in mind the discriminatory treatment to which the applicant company had been subjected, the Court concluded that the authorities had not followed any genuine or consistent policy when deciding to invalidate Megadat.com SRL’s licences. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Given that finding, it further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant company’s complaint under Article   14 taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that the question of the application of Article   41 was not yet ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Krawczak v. Poland (no. 40387/06) The applicant, Janusz Krawczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Poznań (Poland).   In June 1999 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody for three months on three counts of armed robbery. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, which are currently still pending. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that the length, so far eight years and seven months, of the proceedings against the applicant had been excessive. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13. Mr   Krawczak was awarded EUR   7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Mehmet Bilen v. Turkey (no. 5337/02) The applicant, Mehmet Bilen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length and unlawfulness of his detention in police custody in April 2001 on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. He also alleged, in particular, that there was no effective remedy under Turkish law through which he could have contested the unlawfulness of his detention or obtained compensation. He relied on Article   5 §§   3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court could not accept that it had been necessary to detain the applicant for nine days without judicial intervention and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3. The Court recalled that it had already found violations in a number of previous cases concerning the lack of an effective remedy under Turkish law to contest the unlawfulness of detention and obtain compensation. It therefore also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §§   4 and   5. Mr   Bilen was awarded EUR   3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Tarak v. Turkey (no. 18711/02) The applicant, Cihan Deniz Tarak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey).   In November 1996 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on charges of seeking to overthrow the Turkish constitutional order. In October 2002 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court considered that the length of Mr Tarak’s pre-trial detention – five years and ten months – was excessive, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3. (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 Akıncı v. Turkey (no. 12146/02) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the failure to enforce a final judicial decision awarding the applicant additional expropriation compensation.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kartal and Kızıldağ v. Turkey (no. 59641/00) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the State security court in criminal proceedings against the applicants.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Keçecioğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 37546/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning real property belonging to the applicants which was expropriated in the public interest but subsequently not used.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kızıl and Others v. Turkey (no. 1375/03) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning criminal proceedings against the applicants in which, at final instance, the written observations of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been made available to them.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Nurhan Yılmaz (No. 2) v. Turkey (no. 16741/04) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of a conviction by penal order.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Yerlikaya v. Turkey (nos. 10985/02 and 10993/02) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the failure by the domestic authorities to enforce final judgments ordering the transfer of title deeds to the applicants.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Yılmaz and Seçme v. Turkey (nos. 72649/01 and 72652/01) In this case the Court found the above violation owing to the delay by the authorities in paying additional compensation for expropriation.   Two violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Szulc v. the United Kingdom (no. 63679/00) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that, as a widower, he had been refused Widowed Mother’s Allowance and Widow’s Bereavement Allowance.     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) Bezzina Wettinger and Others v. Malta (application no. 15091/06) Majcher v. Poland (no. 12193/02) Ayşe Gök and Others v. Turkey (no. 60579/00) Buyruk v. Turkey (no. 14558/03) Meşrure Sümer v. Turkey (no. 64725/01) Özgen and Others v. Turkey (no. 28925/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Klinar v. Slovenia (no. 34544/02) Sirc v. Slovenia (no. 44580/98)     ***   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) 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] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.