CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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   288 22.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland (application no. 59857/00) The applicant, Juliusz Bennich-Zalewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Warsaw.   Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the length of expropriation proceedings concerning a factory he had inherited from his mother. Further relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention, he complained that, despite the fact that the expropriation decision was declared null and void in a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court on 12 January 2001, he had not been able to regain possession of his factory.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings had lasted ten years. It found that period excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1.   The Court further observed that a complex legal situation had arisen in the applicant’s case involving reciprocal claims between the applicant and a company which was the legal successor of the former State-owned enterprise which had owned and run the factory. The factory was not, however, owned by the public authorities and had complete operational and financial autonomy. The State was not therefore responsible for that company’s acts and omissions. It was, however, responsible for providing effective enforcement of the decision of 12 January 2001 by establishing a legal framework within which the applicant could recover possession of his property. The Court found that the applicant had had the possibility of bringing various types of proceedings to have the 2001 judgment implemented in practice. In two sets of proceedings the courts had indeed ruled in his favour and awarded him damages. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   Mr Bennich-Zalewski was awarded 3,500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,400 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Stefan Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 30072/04) The applicant, Stefan Kozłowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Szczecin (Poland).   In 1993 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for armed robbery. He was ultimately convicted in July 2005 and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court noted, in particular, that the proceedings had lasted over 11   years. It found that period excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. Mr Kozłowski was awarded EUR   7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Zborowski v. Poland (no. 39519/05) The applicant, Mirosław Zborowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Poznań (Poland).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, when detained pending trial from January 2001 to January 2005, correspondence with his lawyer had been censored by the Polish authorities, as several envelopes had been marked with the “censored” stamp. He relied on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court recalled that it had held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continued to mark detainees’ letters with the “ censored” stamp, it had no alternative but to presume that those letters had been opened and their contents read. It also found that the interference in the applicant’s case had not been “in accordance with the law” and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8. Mr Zborowski was awarded EUR   1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Yalçın Küçük (No. 3) v. Turkey (no.71353/01) The applicant, Yalçın Küçük, is a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Gebze (Turkey). He is a university professor and a writer.   The applicant was prosecuted on account of various speeches and articles he had written concerning the Kurdish question. On 4 November 1999 Ankara State Security Court found him guilty of inciting hatred and hostility, of emitting separatist propaganda and of assisting an armed group. He was given a prison sentence of six years and six months and ordered to pay a fine. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complained that the proceedings had been unfair and that his right to freedom of expression had been breached.   The Court considered that the grounds adopted by the Turkish courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. While certain comments in the offending articles and speeches sought to justify separatism, which thus made them hostile in tone, taken as a whole they did not, however, advocate the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising, and did not constitute hate speech, which in the Court’s was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court found that the applicant’s conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, was not “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and that it did not need to examine the complaints submitted under Article 6. It awarded Mr Küçük EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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.