CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 juillet 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 } .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   489 1.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [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 Daróczy v. Hungary (application no. 44378/05) The applicant, Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Budapest.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that she was obliged to change her surname, Tiborné Daróczy, which she had been using since her marriage in 1950. She relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the restriction imposed on the applicant had been unacceptably rigid and completely disregarded her interests, in that she had been forced to alter a name which she had used for more than 50 years and which, beyond its relevance in self-identification and self-determination, also gave her a strong personal link to her late husband. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 and awarded Ms   Daróczy 3,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Malininas v. Lithuania (no. 10071/04) The applicant, Sergejus Malininas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1980 and, at the time of lodging his application, was serving a nine-year custodial sentence at Pravieniškės Prison (Lithuania) for drug-dealing.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his conviction was unfair as not only had he been entrapped by the police into committing an offence, but also that certain essential evidence had not been disclosed at his trial. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. Mr   Malininas was awarded EUR   1,710 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Flux (No. 5) v. Moldova (no. 17343/04) The applicant, Flux , is a Moldovan newspaper based in Chişinău.   The case concerned the newspaper’s complaint about its conviction in 2003 for defamation of a former Deputy Prosecutor General. The applicant newspaper relied, in particular, on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10 and that there had been no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. The applicant newspaper was awarded EUR   185 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kowalczyk v. Poland (no. 44131/05) The applicant, Czesław Kowalczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and is currently detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre following his arrest in January 1999 on suspicion of homicide.   The case concerned his complaint about the excessive length of his detention during the judicial proceedings against him. He relied, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of Mr   Kowalczyk’s detention having lasted more than four years, and awarded him EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 8 Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Calmanovici v. Romania (no. 42250/02) The applicant, Viorel Calmanovici, is a Romanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Bucharest (Romania). At the relevant time he was working as a police officer within the department responsible for fighting economic and financial crime.   The applicant, who was suspected of accepting bribes and misappropriation of documents, was placed in pre-trial detention in August 2002. He was initially acquitted, then convicted of the offences with which he was charged and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant alleged that his initial and continued placement in pre-trial detention had been unlawful, and that the criminal proceedings brought against him had been unfair. He also complained about the surveillance measures applied against him and the prohibitions on his parental and electoral rights for the duration of the term of imprisonment. He relied, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 3 of Protocol   No. 1 (right to free elections).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 on account of the circumstances in which the applicant had been placed and maintained in pre-trial detention, and a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Romanian Court of Cassation.   The Court also found, unanimously, that there had been two violations of Article 8 on account of the wire-tapping of applicant’s telephone calls and the prohibition on his parental rights.   Finally, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the prohibition on the applicant’s right to vote, on account, in particular, of the automatic and indiscriminate nature of the prohibition and the absence of any examination of proportionality in that respect by the domestic courts.   The Court awarded Mr Calmanovici EUR   12,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Elena Negulescu v. Romania (no. 25111/02) The applicant, Elena Negulescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Slatina (Romania).   After obtaining damages and interest following a physical assault, the applicant was informed that execution of the judicial decision in question required that she pay, in advance, the bailiff’s fees. As she was unable to pay, she never obtained execution of the decisions in question. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained about the lack of effective assistance from the authorities in securing execution of the judicial decisions in her favour.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   12,000 in total. It also held that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 13 Beyaz v. Turkey (no. 16254/02) The applicant, Hasan Beyaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Tunceli (Turkey).   He was employed as a civil servant in the general directorate for roads. He alleged that he had been transferred on account of his trade-union activities. He relied, in particular, on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR   500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Samsa v. Turkey (no. 3372/05) The applicant, Nurettin Samsa, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him in October 1998 for forgery of documents. In a judgment of 21 June 2004, the Gaziantep Criminal Court decided to acquit him. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article   13. It awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ioan v. Romania (no. 31005/03) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning an action to recover property.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Borysiewicz the Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Peák v. Hungary (no. 20280/04) Conceria Madera S.R.L. v. Italy (no. 4012/03) Berent-Derda v. Poland (no. 23484/02) Borysiewicz v. Poland (no. 71146/01) Piaskowski and Others v. Poland (no. 35431/05) Sadura v. Poland (no. 35382/06) Tăşchină v. Romania (no. 9415/02) Čeh v. Serbia (no. 9906/04)     ***   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 Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) 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.