CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   448 17.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Bobrowski v. Poland (application no. 64916/01) The applicant, Jerzy Bobrowski, is a Polish national who lives in Kedzierzyn Koźle (Poland).   The case concerned, in particular, Mr   Bobrowski’s complaint about the Polish authorities’ unreasoned decisions to refuse to grant him legal aid for the purposes of lodging an appeal against a first-instance judgment in proceedings with regard to financial difficulties caused by his company’s factory burning down. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Court on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and awarded Mr   Bobrowski 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses (less EUR   850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Just satisfaction Matache and Others v. Romania (no. 38113/02) The applicants, Constantin   Matache, Elena Matache and Zenovia Sprînceană, are Romanian nationals living in Ploieşti (Romania).   They complained of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in their favour. In a judgment of 19 October 2006 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and declared that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Today the Court, unanimously, awarded the applicants EUR 650,000   in respect of all heads of damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 Buran v. Turkey (no. 984/02) The applicant, Hasan Buran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Malatya (Turkey).   At the relevant time he was the proprietor of the weekly newspaper Fırat’ta Yaşam (“Fırat Life”) published in Gaziantep (Turkey). The applicant complained of the seizure of unsold copies of issue no.   97 of the newspaper on 19 March 2001 by the Turkish authorities, who considered that three articles appearing in that issue incited others to hatred and hostility. The articles in question contained very severe criticism of the regime in place, advocated the freedom and cultural rights of Kurds, and contained harsh criticism of the manner in which the Government had handled prison riots. The author also paid tribute to three people who had been sentenced to death – apparently for murder – and executed. The applicant relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   In the Court’s view, although the comments published had a hostile tone they did not incite to violence or armed resistance or uprising and did not amount to hate speech. The Court also considered that the seizure of unsold copies of the newspaper did not meet a “pressing social need”. Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and found that a finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 4 and 5 Karaduman and Others v. Turkey (no.   8810/03) The applicants, Remzi Karaduman, Uğur Uşar and Reşat Uşar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1976 and 1967.   On 26 July 2002 they were arrested and taken into police custody, first at Ankara police headquarters and then at the police headquarters in Diyarbakır, on suspicion of belonging to the illegal organisation Hizbullah (Party of God). They were placed in pre-trial detention on 30 July 2002 and taken to Diyarbakır Prison. On 1 August 2002 the applicants were taken back to the police headquarters for further questioning over ten days. They underwent a number of medical examinations. Some of the medical reports referred to marks and injuries on the bodies of the applicants, whilst others did not. The administrative investigation into the circumstances of their police custody in Ankara was set aside as requiring no further action, and the only police officer charged was acquitted by the Ankara Criminal Court. The proceedings are still pending in respect of the police custody in Diyarbakır. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the circumstances surrounding their detention in police custody.   The Court noted a number of discrepancies between the medical reports that had been drawn up, and considered, in the absence of a plausible explanation by the Government for those discrepancies, that the medical examinations had not been conducted properly. Accordingly, the Court held that the injuries recorded in the applicants’ case, for which the Government had provided no explanation, amounted to a violation of Article 3. It also considered that the authorities had not undertaken an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment suffered by the applicants while they were in police custody, which also constituted a violation of Article 3.   The Court noted, further, that it had previously examined similar cases and found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in that the applicants had been handed back to the police for questioning after being placed in pre-trial detention, thus circumventing the applicable legislation on the periods that could be spent in police custody, and on account of the lack of effective judicial review. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4. The Court noted, lastly, that in the circumstances of the case the applicants could not rely on the legislation providing for an award of compensation for unlawful arrest or unwarranted detention, in breach of Article 5 § 5.   The Court awarded EUR   10,000 to Remzi Karaduman, EUR 5,000 to Uğur Uşar and EUR   8,000 to Reşat Uşar in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 2,000 to the applicants jointly, less the EUR 850   paid by the Council of Europe by way of legal aid, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 Şahin Karataş v. Turkey (no. 16110/03) The applicant, Şahin Karataş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.   He complained that he had been kept in detention for 43 days longer than the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced following several sets of proceedings against him. He also complained of the absence of a remedy by which to obtain compensation for the period of unlawful detention. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (a) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 and awarded the applicant EUR 8,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Tüm v. Turkey (no. 11855/04) The applicant, Okan Tüm, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey).   He was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in October 1996 on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation. Although he was released in December 2005, the criminal proceedings against him are apparently still pending. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,660   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 No violation of Article 13 Kehoe v. the United Kingdom (no. 2010/06) The applicants are Mary Kehoe who was born in 1964, and her four children. They are all Irish nationals and live in County Galway (Ireland).   The case concerned Ms Kehoe’s complaint about the unreasonable delay in enforcing maintenance payments by her ex-husband for their four children and that she had had no recourse against that delay. She relied on Articles   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles   6 and 13. (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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Albu v. Romania (no. 8508/03) Nistorescu v. Romania (no. 15517/03) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in both these cases concerning actions for recovery of possession of real property.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Irimia v. Romania (no. 12334/03) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Uğurlu v. Turkey (no. 45/04) In this case the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because there had been no public hearing when the applicant’s case was examined by the Turkish courts.   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Komanický v. Slovakia (No. 3) (no. 72092/01)     ***   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 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.