CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .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   309 29.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13   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 (length) Márta v. Hungary (application no. 42542/04) The applicant, Péter Márta, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kiskunhalas (Hungary).   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 excessive length of criminal proceedings in which he had submitted civil claims for compensation as a result of fraud.   The European Court of Human Rights noted, in particular, that the proceedings had lasted nearly ten years. It found that period excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1. Mr Márta was awarded 11,200   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Just satisfaction Struck out Morea v. Italy (no. 69269/01) The applicants, Mario, Cesare and Paola Morea, are Italian nationals who were born in 1944, 1928 and 1930 respectively and live in Mottola and Putignano (Italy).   In a judgment of 25 January 2007 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention and held that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   The Court took note of the statements by the Government and the applicants accepting an agreement under the terms of which the applicants would receive EUR 250,000 to cover pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. It accordingly decided to strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Spînu v. Romania (no. 32030/02) The applicant, Ecaterina Gabriela Spînu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (Romania).   In November 2000 she was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for attempted robbery, using toxic substances and aiding and abetting robbery resulting in death. The applicant complained, among other things, of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, which had quashed the Court of Appeal’s acquittal decision without hearing the witnesses or the applicant herself again. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court considered that the applicant’s conviction by the Supreme Court without the applicant herself or the witness for the prosecution being heard, when the two courts below had delivered contradicting decisions on her case, had failed to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial. It accordingly found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 and awarded Mrs Spînu EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Stancu v. Romania (no. 30390/02) The applicants, Dumitru Stancu and Ion Danut Stancu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1946 and 1958 and live in Bucharest and Dâmboviţa (Romania) respectively.   The case concerned the action brought by the applicants before the domestic courts to secure the reestablishment of their title to a piece of land that had belonged to their grandparents until it was nationalised. Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicants complained of the Courts’ refusal to examine the lawfulness of the decisions taken by the local authorities concerning the location of the land restored to them, which was, in their opinion, in a much less favourable location. They also complained of the length of the proceedings. They further alleged that their right, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been violated.   The Court found that the fact that it had been impossible for the applicants to have the courts examine whether they satisfied the legal requirements that would entitle them to have the original piece of land restored to them had impaired the very essence of their right of access to a court. It therefore found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and held that it was not necessary to examine separately their complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. It also found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings and awarded the applicants EUR   10,000 in respect of all damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Vasile v. Romania (no. 40162/02) The applicant, Maria Vasile, is a Romanian national who was born in 1919 and lives in Bucharest (Romania).   The case concerned the non-execution of a final judicial decision ordering private individuals to place a piece of land at the applicant’s disposal following an action for recovery of possession. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complained of a violation of her right to access to a court, because she had been unable to have the judgment in her favour executed and because of the resulting violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   The Court considered that the national authorities had not effectively assisted the applicant in her attempts to secure the execution of the judgment concerned. It found that there had been a violation of Article 6 and awarded the applicant EUR   10,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Barashkova v. Russia (no. 26716/03) The applicant, Galina Mikhaylovna Barashkova, is a Russian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow.   On 1 July 2002 Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed a claim brought by the applicant concerning a dispute with her ex-husband over a flat. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the district court could not be considered a “tribunal established by law” because it had failed to observe the procedure under domestic law governing the selection of lay assessors by the drawing of random lots. She relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court noted that on 1 July 2002 the judge, instead of drawing lots among 156 lay assessors in order to select two of them for the hearing of the applicant’s case, “drew lots” among only two of them. It therefore considered that the procedure provided for by Russian law for selection of lay assessors had not been followed in the applicant’s case and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. Ms Barashkova was awarded EUR   500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   15 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Kutlular v. Turkey (no. 73715/01) The applicant, Mehmet Kutlular, is a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). He is a journalist and the owner of the Yeni Asya daily newspaper.   The applicant was criminally convicted of proffering hate speech, at a religious ceremony organised by the newspaper and in a brochure distributed to the participants. The Marmara earthquake, which killed some 20,000 people in 1999, was presented as divine punishment for the pressure allegedly exerted on religion by the military in Turkey, and for people’s ingratitude towards God, their sinful ways and their failure to praise God. Relying, among other things, on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He also complained, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that he was a victim of discrimination because of his “identification with the opposition”.   The Court noted that in reading religious meaning into a natural disaster and, in particular, suggesting that there was a cause and effect relationship between the disaster and the failure of a majority of the population to react to certain government measures, the speech was capable of spreading superstition, intolerance and obscurantism. Ultimately it was a form of proselytism and its tone was generally offensive towards “non-believers” as well as towards the Government. Nevertheless, the Court considered that, however shocking and offensive they might have been, the applicants words had not incited people to violence or been capable of stirring hatred against people who did not belong to the applicant’s religious community. The Court also found that the criminal conviction of the applicant had been disproportionate to the aim pursued. It accordingly found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and held that there was no need to examine the complaint separately under Article 14. The Court awarded Mr Kutlular EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Şahin Karakoç v. Turkey (no. 19462/04) The applicant, Şahin Karakoç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   In January 1996 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having participated in a terrorist raid on Başbağlar (Turkey) in which 33 of its villagers were killed. He was released in February 1997. Ultimately acquitted, he brought proceedings in which he complained about his unjustified detention and, in November 2001, was awarded compensation. Relying in particular on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the length and unfairness of those compensation proceedings.   The Court noted that Mr Karakoç had, in compliance with the domestic provisions,   been heard by the judge rapporteur, in the absence of the two other judges, the public prosecutor or the defendant party. It   considered that those circumstances   amounted to a lack of a hearing and therefore   held unanimously that there had been a violation of   Article 6 §   1.   However, although the applicant had not been notified of the public prosecutor’s first written opinion with regard to the judgment of November 2001, that judgment had subsequently been quashed and the applicant’s claims had been re-examined during which the public prosecutor had made a second written opinion. That second opinion had been communicated to the applicant and, therefore, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1.   Furthermore, given the complexity of the case, the Court did not find that the length of the proceedings against the applicant - four years and eight months - had been excessive. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 concerning the length of proceedings.   The Court also held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and awarded him EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     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 Dvoryakov v. Russia (no. 28644/06) Portnova v. Russia (no. 34428/04) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.     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) Rolgezer and Others v. Russia (no. 9941/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Karanikas and Others v. Greece (no. 28141/06) Koşal v. Turkey (no. 23453/04)     ***   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) 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.