CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   378 27.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Armenia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Sarukhanyan v. Armenia (application no. 38978/03) The applicant, Gagik Sarukhanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he was disqualified from standing in the 2003 general parliamentary elections in Armenia on the grounds that he had falsified his declaration of property when registering as a candidate. He relied, in particular, on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that requiring candidates to submit truthful information on their property status had pursued the legitimate aim of enabling the electorate to make an informed choice when voting. However, the Court found that the applicant had not intentionally concealed the fact that he had joint ownership of the flat declared in his application. Indeed, the omission in that declaration had been the result of misleading privatisation rules and practices in Armenia at that time. The Court further noted that the information which the applicant had been found to have intentionally concealed, namely a small share in a flat measuring 64.7   sq.   m., could not seriously be considered of major importance or as misleading voters. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s disqualification as a candidate in the general elections had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. Mr   Sarukhanyan was awarded 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,850 (less EUR   850, received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Pisacane and Others v. Italy (no. 70573/01) The applicants, Annamaria, Ada, Flora and Valentina Pisacane, are Italian nationals who were born in 1932, 1961, 1959 and 1968 respectively and live in Benevento (Italy).   They were owners of a plot of building land in Benevento of which the authorities took physical possession in 1979 with a view to its expropriation and the construction of a school. After bringing proceedings to obtain compensation, the applicants were awarded a sum, lower than the market value of the land, that was calculated in accordance with a law of 1992. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded to them. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they also complained that the enactment of the new law and its application to their proceedings constituted legislative interference contrary to their right to a fair hearing. Lastly, they complained about the length of the proceedings.   The Court considered that the compensation awarded to the applicants, in view of its minimal amount, was inadequate and placed upon them a disproportionate and excessive burden that could not be justified by a legitimate general interest. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court further held that there had been two violations of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unfairness of the proceedings, as there was no “obvious and compelling general interest” required to justify the retrospective effect of the law, and secondly, in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings, which had lasted 11 years and 11 months. It awarded the applicants EUR   1,000,000 jointly for pecuniary damage, with EUR   12,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10,000 to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sienkiewicz v. Poland (no. 25668/03) The applicant, Adam Sienkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Mierzeszyn (Poland).   Suspected of having committed several murders using firearms and of using explosives, he was placed in pre-trial detention in January 1999. Although he was released in October 2006, the proceedings against him remain pending. Relying on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention and the length of the proceedings against him.   The Court found that the grounds relied upon by the Polish authorities to justify the applicant’s pre-trial detention for about six years and five months had not been sufficient and held, consequently, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. Furthermore, considering that the length – nine years and two months, to date – of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been excessive, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Hasan Çalışkan and Others v. Turkey (no. 13094/02) The applicants, Hasan Çalışkan, Refika Çalışkan and Kemal Çalışkan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952, 1948 and 1977 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey).   The applicants’ complaints concerned the death in May 2000 of their son and brother, Mehmet Çalışkan, aged 21, while carrying out his military service. The criminal investigation, opened automatically on the very day of the death, led the authorities to conclude that the applicant had committed suicide by shooting himself with his service weapon. The applicants complained of the insufficiency and inadequacy of the criminal investigation into the presumed suicide of Mehmet Çalışkan. The exact circumstances of his death remain unexplained. They relied in particular on Article 2 (right to life).   The Court noted principally that the investigation had not been conducted stringently, in view of its imprecise conclusions, based on inconsistent experts’ reports, as regards the point of entry of the fatal bullet. It observed that it had not been possible to determine the point of entry of the bullet that killed Mehmet Çalışkan because pieces of his clothing originally placed under seal had disappeared, and that the investigating authorities had not reacted to the discrepancies in the experts’ reports. Considering that such negligence had prevented the origin of the fatal shot from being established with certainty, and since this was a material element that had to be established to dispel any doubts that the deceased’s family could reasonably have had concerning the suicide, the Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Mehmet Çalışkan on account of the lack of an effective investigation. It awarded the applicants jointly EUR   13,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Hasan Rüzgar v. Turkey (no. 28489/04) The applicant, Hasan Rüzgar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey).   In February 1993 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having participated actively in various terrorist acts. He was released in October 2006. The criminal proceedings against him would appear to be still pending. Relying in particular on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the length of the pre-trial detention and of the proceedings against him.   The Court found that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had lasted for about 11 years and seven months. Finding such a duration excessive, it held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. Moreover, it noted that the proceedings had to date lasted 15 years and three months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that this duration had been excessive and had not met the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded Mr Rüzgar, unanimously, 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 (fairness) Tekelioğlu v. Turkey (no. 16139/03) The applicant, Cahit Tekelioğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Ankara (Turkey).   In January 2001, during a debate in the Turkish Grand National Assembly, broadcast live on television, the applicant, a member of the Assembly, was insulted by members from another political party. A dispute broke out between him and F.Ş., another member, and the two men exchanged blows. Shortly after this exchange, F.Ş. had a heart attack in the foyer of the Assembly. In February 2002 the applicant was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment for assault against the person of F.Ş., resulting in his unintended death. That judgment was upheld on cassation appeal in October 2002. Relying, among other things, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of the unfairness of the proceedings brought against him.   The Court referred back to its examination of a similar complaint in other cases, where it had found a violation of Article 6 § 1. It thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of that Article on account of the failure to provide the applicant with a copy of Principal State Counsel’s opinion, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Court awarded Mr   Tekelioğlu EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) Ünel v. Turkey (no. 35686/02) The applicant, Sermet Mustafa Ünel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Ankara (Turkey).   The applicant, who was Director General of Civil Aviation at the Ministry of Transport between 1997 and 2000, was arrested while committing an act of corruption in a police operation following a criminal complaint in February 2000. The Assize Court found him guilty of corruption and in October 2001 sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of six years, 15 months and 15 days, together with a fine. In June 2006 the sentence was reduced to four years and two months’ imprisonment and the amount of the fine was reduced. The applicant complained of a lack of fairness in the proceedings before the trial court and claimed that he was the victim of a police conspiracy. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses).   The Court found that the applicant had been arrested in the course of what could be described as a “sting” operation. However, it considered that the police and prosecution service had had good reason to suspect the applicant of corruption, and that the activity of the police could not be said to have provoked the commission of the offence. Accordingly, it found unanimously that there had no been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the allegation of unlawful entrapment.   As regards the fairness of the proceedings, in view of the fact that certain material evidence relevant to the establishment of the applicant’s guilt had not been produced or discussed adequately at the hearing in the defendant’s presence, in spite of requests that he had reiterated to such effect, the Court found that the proceedings had not met the requirements of a fair trial. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). The Court awarded Mr Ünel EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article   6 §   1 about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mikó v. Hungary (no. 40360/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Geršak v. Slovenia (no. 35475/02)     ***   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.