CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   699 7.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22 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 6 § 1 (length) Kalmár and Lorencz v. Hungary (application no. 31692/06) The applicants, László Kalmár and his mother, Terézia Lorencz, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1960 and 1928 respectively. They live in Budapest.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint, in particular, about the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings and criminal proceedings against Mr   Kalmár for libel. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the length of the civil proceedings which have lasted ten-an-half years, and nine years and four months and are still pending, and the length of the criminal proceedings which have lasted for four years and two months and are still pending, had been excessive. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and awarded 12,000   euros   (EUR) to Mr   Kalmár and EUR   6,000 to Ms   Lorencz, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   200, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 11 Éva Molnár v. Hungary (no. 10346/05) The applicant, Éva Molnár, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Engelskirchen (Germany).   Following the 2002 legislative elections in Hungary, the applicant took part in a demonstration demanding a recount of the votes. The case concerned her complaint that that demonstration had been dispersed simply because the police had not been given prior notification. She relied on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights   was satisfied that the dispersal of the demonstration had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others. It observed that the impugned events had originated in an illegal demonstration blocking a main bridge in central Budapest, and that the applicant had participated in the subsequent demonstration at Kossuth Square, the declared   objective of which   was   to support those who had illegally demonstrated on the bridge. The Court emphasised, in particular,   that the demonstrators gathered at Kossuth Square at about 1 p.m. and that the applicant joined them at about 7   p.m. whereas the police did not break up the demonstration until about 9   p.m.   The Court considered that, in these circumstances, the applicant had had sufficient time to show solidarity with her co-demonstrators.   Thus it found that the ultimate interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly did not appear to have been unreasonable. The Court was satisfied that the police had shown the necessary tolerance towards the demonstration, although they had had no prior knowledge of the event, which inevitably disrupted the circulation of the traffic and caused a certain disturbance to public order. Considering that the dispersal of the impugned demonstration had not been a disproportionate measure, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   11 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 11 Patyi and Others v. Hungary (no. 5529/05) The applicants are 48 Hungarian nationals who were creditors, together with some 40,000 other individuals, of an insolvent private company.   The applicants complained about a ban on their holding a series of demonstrations in front of the Prime Minister’s private residence in Budapest, concerning their outstanding claims, which Mr Patyi notified the police department as prescribed by law. They relied on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   The Court held that, with the exception of Mr Patyi (the organiser of the demonstrations planned who had signed all the documents submitted to the competent authorities), it was unable to conclude that the 47 other individuals had been victims of a violation of their Convention rights and, thus, rejected the complaint in their respect. The Court   was satisfied that the ban on the demonstrations had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others. It noted, however,   that Mr Patyi had   planned to organise demonstrations with 20 participants whose only action would have been to stand silently in line on the pavement in front of the Prime Minister’s house. The Court   observed that the space in question had been wide enough to allow other pedestrians to walk by during a demonstration.   Moreover, the Court was not convinced that, in the given circumstances, the demonstrators would   have indeed hindered traffic or hampered the bus services.   Finally, the Court saw nothing to suggest that the demonstrators would have been violent or would have represented a danger to public order. The Court   considered that the ban on the planned peaceful assemblies had not been necessary in a democratic society.   Therefore, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   11 and that there was no need to examine separately the merits of the complaint under Article   10. Mr   Patyi was awarded 1,800   EUR for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Mancevschi v. Moldova (no. 33066/04) The applicant, Oleg Mancevschi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău. He is a lawyer.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about a search of his apartment and office in the context of a murder investigation against one of his clients. He relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court considered that the search of the applicant’s apartment and office, in which he had kept his clients’ case files, had interfered with his rights guaranteed under Article 8, and that the interference had pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime. Considering whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Court   was struck, in particular,   by   the fact that the warrant had been formulated in extremely broad terms, which had given unfettered discretion to the investigator to search for anything he wanted in both the applicant’s apartment and the law office. However, the applicant himself was not charged with, or suspected of, any criminal offence or unlawful activities and the Court noted the absence of any special safeguard to protect lawyer-client confidentiality.   The Court   held unanimously that the authorities had failed in their duty to give relevant and sufficient reasons for issuing the search warrants. It concluded that there had been a violation of Article   8. Mr   Mancevschi was awarded EUR   2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,535 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Dublas v. Poland (no. 48247/06) No violation of Article 5 § 3 Rażniak v. Poland (no. 6767/03) The applicants are two Polish nationals: Grzegorz Dublas who was born in 1972 and lives in Pruszcz Gdański (Poland); and, Zygmunt Rażniak who was born in 1952 and is currently detained in Warsaw Remand Centre.   Mr Dublas was arrested in June 2004 on suspicion of drug dealing. He was released from pre-trial detention in November 2006; the criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending. Mr Rażniak was arrested in August 2000 on suspicion of founding and leading a criminal armed gang which he used to have such crimes as murder, robbery and drug trafficking carried out. He was convicted as charged in May 2003 and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), both applicants complained of the excessive length of their detention. Mr   Dublas further complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Mr Rażniak also alleged that, having sustained serious injuries when his car exploded in May 2000, his medical condition is incompatible with detention and he risks a permanent and serious deterioration in his health, in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court held unanimously that in the case of Dublas there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the unreasonable length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention that lasted for almost two-and-a-half years, and a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings that have so far lasted for over four years for one level of jurisdiction. The Court awarded Mr Dublas EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   In the case of Rażniak , the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the applicant’s pre-trial detention that lasted for two years and nine months, and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. The Court was in particular satisfied that, throughout his detention, the applicant’s condition had been monitored by the prison health service and that he had received appropriate medical treatment. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) No violation of Article 3 No violation of Article 8 Bogumil v. Portugal (no. 35228/03) The applicant, Adam Bogumil, is a Polish national who was born in 1971. When the application was lodged he was being held in Lisbon Prison.   In November 2002, when the applicant arrived at Lisbon airport from Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), he was searched by customs officers, who found several packets of cocaine hidden in his shoes. The applicant informed them that he had swallowed a further packet, which was in his stomach. He was taken to hospital and underwent surgery to remove the packet from his body. Charges were brought against him for drug trafficking, and he was placed in pre-trial detention. During the initial phase of the proceedings, the applicant was assisted by a trainee lawyer. In January 2003, in view of the harshness of the applicant’s potential sentence, a new lawyer, who was supposed to be more experienced, was assigned to the case. However, he only acted in the proceedings to request his discharge three days before the trial. A new duty lawyer was assigned on the very day the trial began and only had five hours to study the case file. In September 2003 the Lisbon Criminal Court convicted him on the charges, sentenced him to four years and ten months’ imprisonment and ordered his exclusion from Portugal. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged that he had not received genuine legal assistance during the criminal proceedings against him. Moreover, relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained that he had sustained serious physical duress on account of the surgery performed on him.   Concerning the complaint about the lack of legal assistance, the Court found that the circumstances of the present case required the domestic court, rather than remaining passive, to ensure concrete and effective respect for the applicant’s defence rights, which it failed to do. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   (c) taken together.   Article 3 – As regards the alleged violation of the applicant’s physical integrity on account of the surgery, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant had given his consent or that he had refused and had been forced to undergo the operation. The decision to perform the surgery had been taken by medical staff. The operation had been required by medical necessity as the applicant risked dying from intoxication and had not been carried out for the purpose of collecting evidence. Indeed, the applicant had been convicted on the basis of various other items of evidence. It was a straightforward operation and the applicant had received constant supervision and an adequate medical follow-up. As to the effects of the operation on the applicant’s health, the evidence before the Court did not establish that the ailments from which the applicant claimed to have been suffering since were related to the operation. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   Consequently, the Court considered that the operation had not been such as to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment and found that there had been no violation of Article 3. Lastly, considering that a fair balance had been struck between the public interest in protecting the applicant’s health and his right to protection against physical or psychological duress, the Court further found that there had been no violation of Article 8.   The Court awarded Mr Bogumil EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (Five applicants) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 11 Saya and Others v. Turkey (no. 4327/02) The applicants are 11 Turkish nationals who live in Adıyaman (Turkey).   On 30 April 1999 the Adıyaman Governor authorised the holding of May Day celebrations in the Adıyaman Amphitheatre. On 1 May 1999 a group of people, including the applicants,   started to walk towards the amphitheatre   for the celebrations. They were stopped by police officers. Stating that they had obtained prior authorisation, the group attempted to continue its march. The police then intervened to disperse the group; the applicants were allegedly injured during this incident as a result of the force used by the police. The applicants were arrested, taken to the   hospital, where they were examined by a doctor, and then taken into custody.   They were released the next day. After examining a video recording of the incident, the Adıyaman Public Prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute 70 demonstrators, including the applicants.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that the police used excessive force to arrest them and that the authorities did not carry out an effective, independent and impartial investigation into their allegation. They relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), 6 (right to a fair trial),   11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court observed that six of the applicants, Zeynep Saya, Hasan Ölgün, Müslüm Atasoy, Zöhre Taş, Nedim Çifçi and Hediye Kilinç were examined by a doctor on the day of the incident and that the ensuing reports did not indicate any signs of ill-treatment on their bodies. As those applicants had not submitted any further medical reports in support of their allegations, the Court found that there was nothing in the case file to prove that the applicants had been injured as alleged during the incident and declared that part of their complaint inadmissible.   However, concerning the other five applicants, Şeyho Saya, Çetin Taş, Akın Doğan, Ali Murat Bilgiç and Bahattin Barış Bilgiç, the Court found that the Turkish Government had failed to justify the degree of force used against the applicants, whose injuries were corroborated by medical reports. As a result, it concluded that the injuries sustained by those five applicants had been the result of treatment for which the State was responsible. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 in respect of Mr   Şeyho Saya, Mr Çetin Taş, Mr Akın Doğan, Mr Ali Murat Bilgiç and Mr   Bahattin Barış Bilgiç.   A further violation of this Article, in respect of   all applicants, was found on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment.   The Court considered that no separate issue arose under Articles 6 and   13.   The Court considered that the police intervention and the subsequent arrest of the applicants for participating in the meeting   had constituted, in itself, an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 11. The Court observed that while the applicants, who had obtained prior authorisation to celebrate May Day, were walking along the pavement, the police stopped them and used force to disperse the group without any prior warning. The Court also noted from the decision not to prosecute that the group had not presented a danger to public order, or engaged in acts of violence. Accordingly, the Court found that the forceful intervention of the police   had not been   necessary for the prevention of disorder. It   held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   11.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   3,000, each, to Mr   Şeyho Saya, Mr Çetin Taş, Mr Akın Doğan, Mr Ali Murat Bilgiç and Mr   Bahattin Barış Bilgiç; and EUR   1,000, each, to Zeynep Saya, Hasan Ölgün, Müslüm Atasoy, Zöhre Taş, Nedim Çifçi and Hediye Kilinç. (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 Dobrescu v. Romania (no. 3565/04) The Court found the above-mentioned violation in this case concerning an action for recovery of property.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Friedrich v. Romania (no. 18108/03) Grigoraş v. Romania (no. 19188/03) The Court found the above violation in these two cases concerning the applicants’ complaints about their inability to recover possession of property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. The Court also held that in the case of Grigoraş there was no need to examine the merits of the complaint under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Marcel Roşca v. Romania (no. 1266/03) The Court held unanimously that there had been the above-mentioned violation on account of the applicant’s inability to use property that had been returned to him and to receive rent.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 Abacı v. Turkey (no. 33431/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that the authorities had deprived her of her property without paying compensation.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Günseli Kaya v. Turkey (no. 40885/02) The Court found the above-mentioned violation in this case, in which the applicant complained that there had been no public hearing in proceedings brought against her.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The Court further held that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in the cases of Ecoprevent Kft and Jerzak .   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ecoprevent Kft v. Hungary (no. 5194/07) Fondyódi v. Hungary (no. 30799/04) Sipos v. Hungary (no. 7060/05) Temesvári v. Hungary (no. 12935/05) Gnatowska v. Poland (no. 23789/04) Jerzak v. Poland (no. 29360/06) Craiu v. Romania (no. 26662/02) Kemal Balıkçı v. Turkey (no. 20605/03)     ***   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 Raif-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] [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] [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.