CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 juin 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   405 3.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland, Romania, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20   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 5 § 3 Jarosław Jakubiak v. Poland (application no. 39595/05) Kucharski v. Poland (no. 51521/99) Zięba v. Poland (no. 4959/04) No violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Panusz v. Poland (no. 24322/02) The applicants are four Polish nationals who live in Poland: Jarosław Jakubiak in Jelenia Góra; Jerzy Kucharski in Drwalew; Ryszard Panusz in Katowice; and, Slawomir Zięba in Bielsko-Biala. They were born in 1971, 1959, 1967 and 1968, respectively.   Mr Jakubiak was arrested in June 1999 on suspicion of homicide and remanded in custody. In March 2006 he was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to 15   years’ imprisonment. He was kept in detention pending his appeal which was ultimately rejected in December 2007.   Mr Kucharski was arrested in November 1996 on suspicion of, among other things, aggravated robbery and false imprisonment and remanded in custody. In March 2000 he was ultimately convicted of false imprisonment and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. As he had already served most of his sentence he was released on probation.   Mr Panusz was arrested in June 2000 on suspicion of murder and remanded in custody. In May 2002 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to 15   years’ imprisonment. He was kept in detention pending his appeal which was ultimately dismissed in May 2004.   Mr Zięba was arrested in December 2001 on suspicion of offences committed as a member of an organised criminal gang (in particular, fraud, forgery, bribery and drug trafficking) and remanded in custody. He was ultimately released in September 2006. The proceedings against him are still pending.   Relying in particular on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, all the applicants complained about the excessive length of their detention. Mr   Panusz further relied on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention concerning monitoring by the authorities of his correspondence.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the grounds given by the Polish authorities could not justify keeping Mr Jakubiak in detention for four years and four months, Mr   Kucharski for just over three years and four months and Mr Zięba for more than three years and six months. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 in each of those three applicant’s cases. Mr   Jakubiak and Mr   Zięba were each awarded 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As Mr   Kucharski had not submitted any claim under Article   41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that it was unnecessary to make such an award.   However, in the case of Panusz the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5 §   3 as it considered that the Polish courts had handled the applicant’s case with relative expedition given the complexity of the case involving other defendants and volumes of evidence from 26   witnesses. The Court noted that the Polish authorities had stamped “censored” on the envelopes in which Mr   Panusz had sent a letter and his application form 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 correspondence 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 and awarded Mr   Panusz EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Misiak v. Poland (no. 43837/06) The applicant, Roman Misiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland).   Mr Misiak was arrested in August 2006 on suspicion of fraud. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the authorities censored his correspondence during his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court noted that the Polish authorities had stamped “censored” on envelopes of mail sent to Mr Misiak from the Polish authorities, the Ombudsman and the European 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 correspondence 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 provided that people detained on remand were entitled to uncensored correspondence with the authorities and Ombudsman and prohibited censorship of detainees’ correspondence with the Court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 concerning the monitoring of Mr   Misiak’s correspondence and awarded him EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Szulc v. Poland (no. 28002/06) The applicant Jacek Szulc, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Łóydź (Poland).   He was arrested in February 2003 and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of being a member of a gang which had carried out attacks using firearms. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and a fine in July 2005. Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) among other provisions, the applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court found that the reasons given in support of keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention had been “relevant and sufficient” and that, in view of the extreme complexity of the case, which had been related to organised crime, the length of the detention had been justified. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5 §   3. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Lapusan v. Romania (no. 29723/03) The applicant, Marin Ion Lapusan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bistrita (Romania).   He was placed in pre-trial detention in February 2003 on suspicion of trafficking in human beings. He was charged with recruiting, on false pretences, a 28-year-old woman and two 16-year-old girls, whom he then forced to work as prostitutes in Germany. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended the first time in March 2003 and his appeal against that decision was dismissed in April 2003 after a hearing at which he was not present. He was ultimately found guilty as charged and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in 2004. Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that after his arrest he was not brought “promptly” before an officer authorised to exercise judicial power . He also relied on Article   5 §   4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention).   The Court could not find any justification for keeping the applicant in custody for one month before bringing him before an officer authorised to exercise judicial power and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3. Moreover, it considered that, by failing to allow him to participate properly in the hearing of April 2003, the Romanian authorities had deprived him of the opportunity to challenge appropriately the grounds given to justify keeping him in pre-trial detention. Accordingly, the Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   4 and awarded Mr   Lapusan EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa v. Romania (no. 1477/02) The applicant, S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa, is a commercial company set up in 1991 when a former State-owned company was turned into a company limited by shares. Its registered office is in Constanţa (Romania) and its principal activity is providing pilot services in seaports and to shipping on the Danube and inland waterways.   The case concerns proceedings in connection with the applicant company’s right to provide pilot services. The company complained about the failure to enforce two final judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice annulling the provisions of ministerial decisions which had prevented it from providing its services. It further complained about the annulment, following an appeal by the Procurator General, of another final judgment given in its favour by the Ploieşti Court of Appeal. The applicant relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   As regards the failure to enforce final judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Court observed in particular that those judgments had placed a clear and unequivocal obligation on the authorities to refrain from applying the provisions in question. However, the authorities had refused to allow the applicant company to provide its services in spite of those judgments and the Court consequently held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   Moreover, the Court considered that the annulment of the final judgment given by the Ploieşti Court of Appeal had breached the principle of legal certainty and thus further held, unanimously, that there had been another violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1.   The Court considered that the question of the application of Article   41 was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kipritçi v. Turkey (no. 14294/04) The applicant, Mehmet Ali Kipritçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Konya (Turkey).   In November 1996 proceedings were brought against him for misappropriation. He was ultimately acquitted in March 2002. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right a fair trial within a reasonable time) among other provisions, he complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court observed that the proceedings in question had lasted for more than five years and three months. Finding that duration excessive, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kutluk and Others v. Turkey (no. 1318/04) The four applicants, Tülin Kutluk, Erdal Kutluk, Esin Kutluk and Emel Kutluk, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1933, 1951, 1954 and 1952 respectively and live in Çanakkale (Turkey). They are the heirs of İsmail Kutluk, the owner of a plot of land in Çamoba, on the Turkish coast.   Their title deeds in respect of the land were declared void on the ground that it was part of the shoreline. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that the proceedings had not been fair and that they had lost their property to the Treasury without receiving any compensation.   The Court referred to a previous case in which a complaint similar to that of the applicants had been submitted under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and it had found a violation of that Article. In the present case the applicants had not received any compensation for the transfer of ownership of their property to the Treasury and that total lack of compensation had not been justified by the Turkish Government. The Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and that it did not need to examine separately the complaints submitted under Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, it held that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them EUR   15,500 jointly for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Karaduman and Tandoğan v. Turkey (nos. 41296/04 and 41298/04) The applicants, Fatma Karaduman and Sevil Tandoğan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1967. The case concerns administrative proceedings brought by the applicants against measures relating to their dismissal from their posts as high-school teachers on account of their persistent refusal to remove Islamic headscarves during lessons, contrary to the clothing rules in force at the relevant time. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial), they complained that they had not been allowed to respond to the opinion of Principal State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court.   The Court referred to previous cases in which a complaint similar to that of the applicants had been submitted and it had found a violation of Article   6 §   1. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of a breach of the rights to adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court, and found that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dimitrescu v. Romania (nos. 5629/03 and 3028/04) Draica v. Romania (no. 35102/02) Halmagiu and Bellu v. Romania (no. 10012/03) Ioana Petrescu and Others v. Romania (no. 23635/04) Stoicutia v. Romania (no. 20334/03) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in these five Romanian cases concerning actions for recovery of possession.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Marioara Anghelescu v. Romania (no. 5437/03) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Demirci v. Turkey (no. 21843/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that he was not informed of the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation in criminal proceedings against him.     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) Cieślak v. Poland (no. 32098/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) by Romania No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) by the United Kingdom Deak v. Romania and the United Kingdom (no. 19055/05)     ***   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.