CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mai 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   360 20.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 24   Chamber judgments, none of which are 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 8 Andrysiak v. Poland (application no. 31038/06) The applicant, Radosław Andrysiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Sieradz Prison (Poland).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his correspondence was censored by the prison authorities while he was in detention on remand. He relied on Articles   8 (right to respect for correspondence) and   34 (right of individual petition) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Polish authorities had stamped “censored” on one of the applicant’s letters to the Court and that it had held on many occasions that, as long as that practice continued, it had no alternative but to presume that the letters in question had been opened and read. It followed that there had been an “interference” with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. The Court further held that that interference had not been “in accordance with the law”, as the Polish Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences prohibited censorship of detainees’ correspondence with the Court. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 of the Convention. It further held unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article   34. Mr   Andrysiak was awarded 500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Ferla v. Poland (no. 55470/00) The applicant, Sławomir Ferla, is a Polish national who lives in Fałkowo (Poland).   In December 1998 the applicant was arrested on charges of aggravated assault for which, a year later, he was convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his wife was only allowed to visit him once while he was in detention between December 1998 and November 1999, because she was a witness in the proceedings against him. He did not see his son at all. He relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court noted that the restrictions on the applicant’s personal contact with his family had amounted to an “interference” with his family life. That interference had been “in accordance with the law” and pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been carried out properly. The Court observed that, in order to prevent collusion, the Polish authorities had not considered any alternative to the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s contact with his family, such as limiting the frequency and duration of visits or having them supervised by a prison officer. The Court therefore concluded that those restrictions had gone beyond what had been necessary in a democratic society to prevent disorder and crime and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8. Mr   Ferla was awarded EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Korzeb v. Poland (no. 39586/03) Piotrowski v. Poland (no. 45217/06)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Tomecki v. Poland (no. 47944/06) The applicants are four Polish nationals who live in Poland. Dominik Korzeb and his brother, Marcin Korzeb, were born in 1979 and 1981 respectively and live in Ostrów Mazowiecka. Tomasz Piotrowski was born in 1966 and lives in Łódź, and Marek Tomecki was born in 1968 and is currently detained in Racibórz Remand Centre (Poland).   The Korzeb brothers were arrested in June and July 2001 and later charged with rape and burglary. They were convicted as charged in March 2004 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.   Mr Piotrowski was arrested in April 2003 on suspicion of aiding and abetting robbery. He was convicted as charged in August 2006 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He has since been released and the proceedings against him are currently pending on appeal.   Mr Tomecki was arrested in December 2004 and detained on remand on charges of repeated robbery and membership of an organised gang. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.   All the applicants complained about the excessive length of their detention on remand. They relied on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court concluded that the grounds given by the Polish authorities to justify keeping Dominik and Marcin Korzeb in pre-trial detention for more than two years and six months, and Mr Piotrowski for more than three years, had not been “relevant and sufficient” and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 in both cases. However, in the case of Tomecki , the Court found that the grounds given for the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been “relevant” and “sufficient” and that, given the exceptional complexity of the case which had involved organised crime, the length of the investigation and trial had been justified.   Mr   Piotrowski was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and, in the case of Korzeb , the Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Santos Pinto v. Portugal (no. 39005/04) The applicant, Ferreira Santos Pinto, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1936 and lives in Cahors (France).   The case concerns a plot of agricultural land situated in Cartaxo (Portugal) which belonged to the applicant. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained about the dismissal of an appeal lodged by him in the context of expropriation proceedings   in respect of part of his land, although a similar appeal in respect of another part of the same plot had been accepted.   The Court, noting in particular that the regulations on the admissibility criteria for appeals must be sufficiently coherent and clear, considered that the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal had been contrary to the principle of judicial certainty and had amounted to a denial of justice, given the difference in the assessment of identical situations by the same court. It therefore concluded that there had been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Boyraz v. Turkey (no. 26891/02) The applicant, Seyit Veyis Boyraz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul.   In 1992 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in the course of police operations carried out against the extreme-left-wing armed organisation Devrimci Sol and faced criminal proceedings for attempting to overthrow the constitutional regime. He was released on bail in 2001. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length (more than eight years) of Mr Boyraz’s detention. It awarded him EUR   7,   000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Cengiz Sarıkaya v. Turkey (no. 38870/02) The applicant, Cengiz Sarıkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970. He died in August 2006.   Suspected of belonging to the Islamic Movement ( İslami Hareket ), an illegal organisation, the applicant was arrested and taken into custody in July 1993. In February 2002 he was convicted by Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of ill-treatment that he had suffered while in police custody, the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   The Court declared the application admissible with regard to the complaints under Article 6 §   1 and declared inadmissible the remainder of the application. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of Istanbul State Security Court and the excessive length (more than eight years) of the proceedings before that court. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Cığerhun Öner v. Turkey (no. 33612/03) The applicant, Ciğerhun Öner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1989 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   In October 2001, when he was 12 years old, the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of theft. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained of the rejection of his request for legal aid with regard to an action for damages he had brought against the Turkish State for ill-treatment suffered while in police custody.   The Court noted that neither the applicant nor his mother had an income, and that they had provided evidence of their financial hardship. It also stressed that Turkish law did not allow for the possibility of challenging the courts’ evaluation of the merits of requests for legal aid. Consequently, it considered that the rejection of the applicant’s request had deprived him of the possibility of having his case heard by a court, and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13. It awarded Mr Öner EUR   7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (Five applicants) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Dilsiz and Others v. Turkey (no. 71844/01) The six applicants, Mehmet Dilsiz, Bedurhan Dilsiz, Halil Zeyrek, Muhsin Gasır, Ali Güven and Ömer Tunç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949, 1970, 1978, 1948, 1944 and 1954 respectively and live in Cizre (Turkey).   Between 2000 and 2001 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody for being members of and assisting the illegal PKK organisation (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and drug trafficking. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they complained of having been arrested several times without any plausible reason and taken into custody for excessively long periods.   The Court reiterated that a period of detention in police custody amounting to four days and six hours without judicial supervision fell outside the strict constraints permitted by Article 5 § 3, even if it was intended to protect the community as a whole from terrorism. Noting that the period spent in police custody by Mehmet Dilsiz, Halil Zeyrek, Muhsin Gasır, Ali Güven and Ömer Tunç had exceeded that time-limit, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It awarded the five applicants a total amount of EUR   6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR   850 already paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid. The Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 8 Gülmez v. Turkey (no. 16330/02) The applicant, Ali Gülmez, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and is serving a prison sentence in Sincan F-type Prison in Ankara.   In March 2000 the applicant was placed in detention on remand on suspicion of murder, armed robbery and membership of an illegal organisation. During his detention on remand in 2001 six disciplinary sanctions were imposed on him for damaging prison property, chanting slogans and refusing to be searched. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him and the ensuing restriction on his visiting rights for approximately one year. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). Further relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he also complained about the conditions of his detention in Sincan Prison.   The Court noted that no public hearing had been held during the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and his submissions in his defence had only been taken into account just before the Disciplinary Board had imposed the sanctions. Nor had the applicant been given the opportunity to defend himself through a lawyer before the courts which had examined his appeals. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1.   It further noted that the relevant legal provisions on which the restrictions on the applicant’s visiting rights had been based had not indicated in precise terms those acts which were punishable and their related penalties. The Court was therefore not convinced that those provisions, as they had been in force in 2001, had been sufficiently clear and detailed to appropriately protect a detainee from any wrongful interference with his or her right to family life. The Court therefore further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8.   Mr   Gülmez was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application under Article   3 was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Hüseyin Şimşek v. Turkey (no. 68881/01) The applicant, Hüseyin Şimşek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in St. Pölten (Austria).   In 1995 the applicant was taken into custody and charged with membership of the extreme left-wing clandestine TKP-ML/TIKKO organisation. Erzurum State Security Court (Turkey) convicted him in 2000. In March 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police custody officers, accusing them of having tortured him. At the end of those proceedings the Turkish courts concluded in 2004 that the prosecution of the offence in question was time-barred. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complained in particular of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations. In addition, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained of the unfairness of the proceedings brought against him.   The Court noted that, after the applicant had lodged his complaint, about a year passed before the police officers against whom the charges had been made were referred to a court; that about eight months later all the evidence seemed to have been collected, with the exception of the - decisive - information that would have enabled the applicant’s torturers to be identified; that a further four years passed before the prosecution became time-barred; and that, during all that time, the applicant’s three presumed torturers continued to perform their duties. The Court found that latitude towards the accused difficult to understand, far less how, for more than five years, the police administration was able to override the instructions of a criminal court by refusing with impunity to provide photographs of the police officers. In addition, from 2002 onwards the trial judges were perfectly aware of the fact that the offence was likely to be subject to a time-bar; yet the majority nonetheless decided to hold two more hearings, the need for which the Court failed entirely to understand. Consequently, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3, given the Turkish courts’ failure to show the diligence and will required by the gravity of the circumstances, in order to ensure that the proceedings were completed before the prosecution became time-barred. The Court also concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of Erzurum State Security Court and held that it was not necessary to rule on the other complaints under this Article. It awarded Mr Şimşek EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 2 (life) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Kasa v. Turkey (no. 45902/99) The applicant, Hamdi Kasa, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Istanbul.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his 18-year-old son, Hakan Kasa, was killed by the police on 13 August 1993 following an armed clash in a shopping centre. Police had gone to the centre following an anonymous tip-off about a number of armed people behaving suspiciously there. Four others were also killed during the incident. The applicant relied, in particular, on Article   2 (right to life).   The Court noted, in particular, that witnesses had submitted that the first gunshot had come from one of the five killed during the incident and that police officers had issued warnings and had only started shooting once fired at. Furthermore, 35 of the bullets found at the scene had come from the suspects’ firearms. The Court also recalled that it had already held in other cases that it could not substitute its own assessment of such a situation for that of the police officers who had had to react in the heat of the moment. That would impose an unrealistic burden on a State and its law-enforcement personnel in the execution of their duty, perhaps to the detriment of their lives and others’. The Court therefore considered that the use of lethal force in the circumstances, however regrettable, had not exceeded what had been “absolutely necessary” for the purposes of self-defence and carrying out a lawful arrest. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   2 in respect of the killing of the applicant’s son.   On the other hand, the Court observed that the investigating authorities had only started questioning those police officers involved in the killing of the applicant’s son four months after the incident. Some of the officers had not, in fact, been questioned until more than a year later. The Turkish Government gave no explanation for those delays. As those officers had been the only eye-witnesses to the incident, their questioning should have been a priority. The Court concluded that that failing was so serious that it had made the whole of the investigation ineffective and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2.   As the applicant failed to submit his claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that there was no call to award Mr   Kasa any such award. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Münire Demirel v. Turkey (no. 5346/03) The applicant, Münire Demirel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.   In February 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Sol . She was released pending trial in February 2003. The proceedings against her are currently still pending. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of her detention on remand. She relied on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court considered that the length of the applicant’s detention on remand, approximately eight years, had been excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3. Ms   Demirel was awarded EUR   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Violation of Article 13 Volkan Şahin v. Turkey (no. 34400/02) The applicant, Volkan Şahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Antalya (Turkey).   In May 1993 the applicant was questioned concerning an accusation against him of forgery. He was subsequently charged with that offence and ultimately convicted and sentenced in February 2002 to one year and eight months’ imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. 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 considered that the length of the criminal proceedings (almost eight years and nine months) against the applicant had been excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 13. The Court held, as in a number of cases raising a similar issue, that there had been a further violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the public prosecutor’s written opinion not having been made available to the applicant. Mr   Şahin was awarded EUR   3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Twizell v. the United Kingdom (no. 25379/02) The applicant, Geoffrey Twizell, is a British national who was born in 1941 and lives in France.   Mr Twizell’s wife died in March 2001. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, as a widower, he was refused Widow’s Payment. He also complained that he was refused Bereavement Payment and Bereavement Allowance to which he would have been entitled under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, introduced to level out discrimination against widowers, had his wife died after April 2001. He relied, in particular, on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the applicant’s wife had died just before the entry into force of the 1999 Act and could not therefore qualify for the newly-introduced system of Bereavement Payment and Bereavement Allowance. It noted, however, that that situation had been an inevitable consequence of the United Kingdom having reformed its social strategy policy and that the cut-off date had been reasonably and objectively justified. The Court therefore declared that part of the applicant’s complaint inadmissible. However, the Court held, as in a number of cases raising a similar issue, that there had been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the applicant’s complaint about non-entitlement to Widow’s Payment and awarded Mr Twizell EUR   1,960 in respect of pecuniary damage.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Edip Uslu v. Turkey (no. 43/02) Öz v. Turkey (no. 43883/04) Sak v. Turkey (no. 4644/03) Sakarya v. Turkey (no. 11912/04) The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in these four Turkish cases. The cases of Edip Uslu , Sak and Öz concerned the applicants’ complaints concerning land which had belonged to them. In the case of Sakarya , the applicant complained of the failure to pay compensation which had been awarded to him in a final judgment.   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Smith v. the United Kingdom (no. 64729/01) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint, in particular, that, as a widower, he had been refused 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) Florek v. Poland (no. 20334/04) Rapoš v. Slovakia (no. 25763/02) Şenol Uluslararası Nakliyat, İhracat ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi v. Turkey (no. 75834/01)     ***   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.