CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 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 } .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   412 5.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria and   Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five 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 6 § 1 (length) Gürsoy v. Austria (application no. 20597/04) The applicant, Ilknur Gürsoy, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Lustenau (Austria).   Ms Gürsoy entered Austria in February 1998 on a temporary visa, which was valid until the end of June 1998. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length of administrative criminal proceedings brought against her in January 1999 for illegal residence. Her case was ultimately dismissed in December 2003 because it did not raise important legal issues and had little chance of success. She relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The European Court of Human Rights found in particular that the proceedings against the applicant had not been complex and that, given what had been at stake for her, four years and 11 months had been excessive and had not met the “reasonable time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and awarded Ms   Gürsoy 1,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 4 Mehmedali v. Bulgaria (no. 69248/01) The applicant, Hussein Mehmedali, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Momchilgrad (Bulgaria).   In February 2001 he was charged with acquiring and possessing illegal drugs and was remanded in custody. He was released in June 2001, but was later found guilty as charged and was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in July 2004. He complained that for a period of two months from March 2001 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal had denied him the possibility of applying for a review of the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention).   Noting that the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention had already been reviewed twice, at four levels of jurisdiction in total, before the Court of Appeal’s decision, that the restriction had in fact been in place for only one month and 20 days, and that the applicant could have applied at any time, if necessary, for release on medical grounds, the Court considered that the decision complained of had not infringed his right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed at “reasonable intervals”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Rashid v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 74792/01) The applicant, Erdjan Hussein Rashid, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kardzhali (Bulgaria).   After being charged with receiving stolen goods in September 1999, the applicant was first placed in pre-trial detention and later, between February 2001 and July 2003, was made subject to a compulsory residence order. On 31 August and 28 September 2001 and 7 April 2003 he applied to be released, but was unsuccessful. Only his last application was examined at a public hearing. The criminal proceedings against him were still pending in October 2006. The applicant submitted a series of complaints under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), alleging that his pre-trial detention was unlawful. He further complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court noted that the overall length of the applicant’s detention had amounted to approximately one year and eight months, including a period of some ten months in which he had been subject to a compulsory residence order. As to whether the authorities had conducted the criminal investigation with the “special diligence” required by Article 5 § 3, the Court observed that it had already held in previous cases against Bulgaria that repeated and unjustified referrals back to the investigation stage, as had happened in the present case, caused excessive delays in the conduct of criminal proceedings. It therefore considered that, although there had been “relevant and sufficient” reasons justifying the applicant’s continued detention, the investigating authorities had not acted with the requisite “special diligence”, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court further held that the failure to hold a public hearing in connection with the applications for release lodged on 31 August and 28 September 2001 had deprived the applicant of the opportunity to present his case in proceedings complying with the safeguards in Article 5 § 4, and accordingly held that there had been a violation of that provision.   In addition, it noted that it had already held on many occasions that Bulgarian law did not afford detainees in a similar position to the applicant the opportunity to obtain compensation. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Lastly, it observed that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant – more than seven years – had been excessive and thus in breach of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded Mr Rashid EUR 3,500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     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) Violation of Article 13 Lambadaridou v. Greece (no. 42150/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Zourdos and Others v. Greece (no. 24898/06)   ***   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.