CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 septembre 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   653 23.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 24 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment 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.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 Ahtinen v. Finland (application no. 48907/99) The applicant, Seppo Ahtinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Rovaniemi (Finland) where he was a parish priest with the Evangelical Lutheran Church for more than ten years.   The case concerned, in particular, Mr Ahtinen’s complaint that in November 1998 he was transferred to another parish 100   km away without his consent and without being heard properly on the real reasons for his transfer. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that under Finnish law the Evangelical Lutheran Church had the right to run its own affairs and, in particular, was independent to decide on such matters as the appointment of its priests, including how long and where they were to carry out their pastoral activity. On having agreed to serve as a parish priest with the Lutheran Church, the applicant had undertaken to abide by those rules. The Court also reiterated that it had already found in a previous case that the judicial determination of issues such as the continuation of a priest’s service would be contrary to the principles of autonomy and independence guaranteed by, among other things, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The Court concluded that there was no basis either in domestic law or in the Court’s case-law to hold that the applicant had a “right” within the meaning of Article   6   §   1 and therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of that Article. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kachel v. Poland (no. 22930/05) The applicant, Jan Kachel, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence in Tarnów (Poland) for murder.   The case concerned, in particular, Mr Kachel’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the excessive length – almost three years – of Mr   Kachel’s pre-trial detention and awarded him 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dumitrescu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 29517/02) The applicant, Iulia Dumitrescu, was a Romanian national who was born in 1934 and lived in Bucharest. She died on 2 July 2006.   She alleged that she had been unable to exercise her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions on account of the fact that for a long period she had been unable to dispose of apartments transferred into her possession and collect rent for the properties. She relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the restrictions imposed on the applicant for approximately two years regarding the use of her flats did not maintain a fair balance between protection of the individual’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and the requirements of the general interest. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant’s heirs EUR   7,000 to cover all heads of damage taken together. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14 Zăinescu v. Romania (no. 26832/03) The applicant Dănuţ Zăinescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest.   He formerly served in the border police and in that capacity was considered a member of the armed forces. He alleged that income tax had been illegally deducted from the allowance he received on retirement and complained of discrimination in that other members of the armed forces in his situation had received a tax-free allowance. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court considered that the interference complained of had been manifestly illegal under Romanian law and consequently incompatible with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It further noted that, unlike the applicant, other members of the armed forces transferred to the reserve had received the allowance in question without paying tax on it and could see no justification for such discrimination. It held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 both taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14 and awarded the applicant EUR   5,300 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Vrenčev v. Serbia (no. 2361/05) The applicant, Ljubiša Vrenčev, is a Serbian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Pančevo (Serbia).   Detained on 6 July 2004 on suspicion of illicit possession of narcotics, Mr   Vrenčev was released 20 days later following a hearing in which he was found guilty and given a fine. The case concerned Mr Vrenčev’s complaint about the unlawfulness of that detention because, essentially, the domestic courts had failed to note his correct address. He relied on Article   5   §§   1, 3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that the parties did not dispute the fact that there had been a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question. It therefore found that, despite the regrettable confusion concerning the applicant’s address, his detention had not been unlawful or arbitrary and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5   §   1   (c). However, it had taken 20 days for the applicant to be brought in person before a judge and, even then, that had not been part of a pre-trial review procedure but had occurred at the applicant’s actual trial. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3. It also found that the applicant’s right to be released pending trial had been breached, in further violation of Article   5 §   3. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning delays and the lack of an oral hearing in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Finally, the Supreme Court having found that the applicant’s detention had been lawful, the Court found that he had no “enforceable right to compensation” in any ensuing civil suit, in violation of Article 5 § 5. Mr   Vrenčev   was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,603 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 54334/00) The applicant, Ivan Lexa, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava.   Between 1995 and 1998 Mr Lexa was the Director of the Slovakian intelligence service ( Slovenská informačná služba ). From April to July 1999 he was detained on remand on suspicion of having been involved in 1995 in the abduction of M. Kováč, the son of the then President of the Slovak Republic. The criminal proceedings against him were ultimately discontinued in June 2001. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about his pre-trial detention following the quashing of a decision in September 1998 which had granted him amnesty. He relied on Article   5 §   1 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that Slovakian law had no provisions which allowed for a presidential decision on amnesty to be quashed and that the applicant’s detention could not therefore be regarded as “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”. Nor had the quashing of unconditional measures of clemency been generally accepted by the law, practice and prevailing legal opinion in other Contracting States. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained. Mr   Lexa was awarded EUR   8,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Friendly settlement Rosival and Others v. Slovakia (no. 17684/02) The five applicants are three Slovakian nationals: Viktor Rosival, who was born in 1930 and lives in Trnava (Slovakia), Viktória Lužáková, née Rosivalová, who was born in 1957 and lives in Trnava (Slovakia), and Ladislav Rosival, who was born in 1968 and lives in Bratislava; one Austrian national, Klára Trugerová, who was born in 1957 and lives in Graz (Austria); and, one Slovakian and Austrian national, Agneša Trugerová, who was born in 1964 and also lives in Graz.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaint about the unfairness of proceedings with regard to their claim for restitution of 1,500 hectares of forest land. Notably, retroactive legislative interference with the applicants’ case meant that they were only allotted a maximum of 250   hectares. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Slovakian Government undertook to restore to the applicants property as specified in the agreement and to pay them, jointly, EUR   35,000 in respect of any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 10 Aktan v. Turkey (no. 20863/02) The applicant, Sakine Aktan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Zurich (Switzerland). She is a journalist.   The case concerned the publication in the daily newspaper Özgür Bakış in December 1999 of a report produced by the applicant with the president of the Association of Journalists of Kurdistan in which the latter criticised the pressure exerted on journalists working for the Kurdish press. The Istanbul National Security Court sentenced the applicant twice, in May   2001 and February 2004, to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine, ruling that the article taken as a whole was intended to incite the people to hatred and hostility. Following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code, the applicant’s case was reopened. She was acquitted of the charges against her in August 2007, but the proceedings are still pending as the prosecution appealed against her acquittal. She relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression). She further complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation had not been fair, as she had not been supplied with a copy of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion during the initial phase of the proceedings.   As regards the complaint that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation had not been fair, the Court considered that the reopening of the criminal proceedings could be regarded as having provided a remedy for the complaint raised by the applicant and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   As to the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, the Court considered that although certain particularly critical passages in the article portrayed Turkey in an extremely negative light, and thus gave the text a hostile connotation, they did not incite violence, armed resistance or rebellion and did not constitute hate speech. It further held that the sentences repeatedly imposed on the applicant had been disproportionate to the aims sought to be achieved and accordingly not “necessary in a democratic society”. Consequently, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   10 and awarded Mrs Aktan EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Araç v. Turkey (no. 9907/02) The applicant, Emine Araç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.   While studying theology at the İnönü Theology Faculty in Malatya she applied for enrolment at the Theology Faculty of the University of Marmara. The university authorities refused to accept her on the ground that she had not supplied an identity photograph showing her unveiled face, as required by the regulations then in force. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the university’s refusal. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), she complained that the proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court had not been fair.   In the first place, the Court considered that the applicant’s right of access to an institution of higher education was a civil right and that Article 6 was therefore applicable in the case. It went on to observe that it had previously considered complaints identical to the one raised by the applicant in other cases in which it had found violations of Article 6 § 1. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had been infringed and ruled that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage she had suffered. It awarded her EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (in respect of two of the applicants) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ekici and Others v. Turkey (no. 28877/03) The applicants are five Turkish nationals, Niyazi Ekici, Şükrü Güntoğar, Bayram Akbulut, Salih Demircan and Müzeyyen   Kalkan, employees of Diyarbakır Sur Municipality who were dismissed in May 1999.   The case concerned the non-enforcement since November 1999 of final judgments by Diyarbakır Labour Court awarding compensation to the applicants following their claims for outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities and severance pay. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court observed that the municipality had reached friendly settlements with Müzeyyen   Kalkan, Şükrü Güntoğar and Bayram Akbulut and therefore declared their complaints under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 inadmissible. As concerned Salih Demircan and Niyazi Ekici, the Court found that the Turkish authorities had failed to enforce the Labour Court’s judgments in their favour and had prevented them from receiving money to which they had been entitled, in violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. As the Turkish authorities had also failed for a number of years to take the necessary measures to comply with final judicial decisions, the Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of all the applicants.   The Court held that the Turkish Government was to pay Niyazi Ekici and Salih Demircan the outstanding amounts of the judgment debts still owed to them, plus statutory interest applicable under domestic law. Each of the five applicants was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Habip Çiftçi v. Turkey (no. 28485/03) The applicant, Habip Çiftçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving life imprisonment in Ümraniye Prison, Istanbul, for membership of an illegal organisation.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his detention on remand and the lack of a remedy to challenge the lawfulness of that detention as well as the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   5 §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the excessive length, more than 12 years and four months, of the applicant’s detention on remand, and a violation of Article   5 §   4 as any existing remedy at that time to challenge the lawfulness of that detention had little chance of success in practice. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length, 13 years, of the criminal proceedings. Mr   Çiftçi was awarded EUR   15,000 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 § 3 Müdet Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 2623/04) The applicant, Müdet Kömürcü, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey).   In November 1997 Mr Kömürcü was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation, the MLSPB/DK (Armed Marxist-Leninist Propaganda Union - Revolutionary Liberation), and using explosives. He was released in September 2004. It appears from the material in the case file that the proceedings against him are 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 considered that the grounds given by the Turkish authorities to justify the applicant’s continued detention for approximately six years and nine months had been insufficient and accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It awarded Mr Kömürcü EUR   4,900 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Reyhan v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 60123/00) The applicant, Hasan Hüseyin Reyhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953. At the relevant time he was serving a sentence of 12 years and six months in Aydın Prison for membership of an illegal organisation.   The case concerned the interception by the prison authorities of two audio cassettes in the Kurdish language which had been sent to the applicant. When the applicant complained to the Turkish courts that this interception had been illegal they found against him, referring to an instruction in which the Ministry of Justice had banned cassettes in Kurdish from Turkish prisons. He relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Even supposing that the instruction from the Ministry had constituted a basis in law for the purposes of Article 8, the Court considered that it was not accessible to the applicant. Accordingly, as the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence had not been in accordance with the law, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom (nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06) The applicants are two British nationals, Mark William Grayson and John Barnham, who are serving prison sentences in, respectively, Nottingham and Ashwell (the United Kingdom) for drugs offences. Mr Grayson was convicted of an offence involving the importation of over 28   kilograms of pure heroin with a wholesale value of 1.2 million pounds sterling (GBP) (EUR   1,518,526). Mr Barnham was described during his trial as the lead organiser in an internationally based drug trafficking business.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that, in confiscation proceedings following their convictions,   the national courts in making the confiscation orders assumed that the applicants had hidden assets in addition to the assets   established by the prosecution to be in their possession. Thus,   the legal burden of proof was on   the applicants to show that their realisable property was less than the amount to which they had been assessed to have benefited from drug trafficking. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court agreed with the domestic courts that it had been compatible with the notion of a fair hearing in criminal proceedings to have placed the onus on each applicant to give a credible account of his current financial situation. Having been proved to have been involved in extensive and lucrative drug dealing over a period of years, it had not been unreasonable to expect the applicants to explain what had happened to all the money shown by the prosecution to have been in their possession. Only the applicants could have had such knowledge and the burden on each of them would not have been difficult to meet if their accounts of their financial affairs had been true. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   1 in respect of either applicant. The requirement to pay money under a confiscation order therefore having been made in compliance with Article   6 § 1, the Court found that there had been no disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (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 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Prepeliţă v. Moldova (no. 2914/02) Samoilă and Others v. Romania (no. 14073/03) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sociedade Agrícola da Herdade das Várzeas, Lda v.   Portugal and 22 other “Agrarian Reform” cases (nos.   17199/05, 24311/05, 24315/05, 24674/05, 24677/05, 25946/05, 26244/05, 28628/05, 30793/05, 30850/05, 31044/05, 31066/05, 31348/05, 31706/05, 31781/05, 31784/05, 31793/05, 31807/05, 31809/05, 32267/05, 32269/05, 32270/05 and 33221/05) The applicants were the owners of land which had been expropriated in 1975 in accordance with Portugal’s agrarian reform policy. The Court found the above violation concerning the applicants’ complaint that they had not received “fair” compensation and about the delay in calculating and paying the final amount.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Amurăriţei v. Romania (no. 4351/02) The Court found the above violations in these two cases on account of the Romanian authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Tripon v. Romania (No. 1) (no. 36942/03) Tripon v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 4828/04) Urbanovici v. Romania (no. 24466/03) The Court found the above violations in these three cases on account of the quashing of a final and enforceable decision in the applicants’ favour by means of an extraordinary appeal.   Violation of Article 6 §   1 (fairness) Eyüp Kaya v. Turkey (no. 17582/04) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the domestic courts’ refusal to grant the applicant legal aid.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) İrkin v. Turkey (no. 30200/02) In this case the Court found the above violation on account of the fact that a military judge had sat as a member of the court which tried the applicant.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. He also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 13 Ambrosino v. Italy (no. 32745/02)     ***   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 Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.