CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 novembre 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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   812 18.11.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Lithuania, Serbia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   One repetitive case [2] and two length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 8 Savenkovas v. Lithuania (application no. 871/02) The applicant, Valerijus Savenkovas, is a Lithuanian national of Belarusian origin who was born in 1957 and lives in Vilnius. At the time of lodging his application, he was serving a prison sentence.   Mr   Savenkovas was convicted in October 2000 of robbery, illegal possession of ammunition, assault and an attempt to abscond. He was sentenced to five years and ten   months’ imprisonment. That decision was upheld on appeal. He was released in July 2003 but has since been detained and prosecuted on another charge. The case concerned the applicant’s complaints, in particular, about the conditions of his detention in two Vilnius prisons until July 2003 and censorship of his correspondence by the prison administration. He relied, in particular, on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “CPT”) had reported severe overcrowding (1.3   m 2 per person) in Lukiškės Remand Prison following its visit to the establishment in 2000. The applicant, as a remand prisoner, had had to stay in those cramped conditions some 23   hours per day, with no access to work, educational or recreational facilities. Furthermore, each cell had had an open toilet without sufficient privacy. The Court considered that those conditions had failed to respect basic human dignity and had to have been prejudicial to the applicant’s physical and mental state. The Court therefore held unanimously that the severely overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of the applicant’s detention at Lukiškès Remand Prison had amounted to degrading treatment, in violation of Article   3. However, it dismissed the applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of his detention in Rasų Prison as it considered them unsubstantiated. The Court further found that at the relevant time there had been systematic censorship of prisoners’ correspondence, with the apparent exception of letters to State institutions and the Court, and that the Government had not given sufficient reasons to show that such extensive control had been necessary in a democratic society. It therefore held that there had also been a violation of Article   8. Mr   Savenkovas was awarded 5,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 No violation of Article 8 Damnjanović v. Serbia (no. 5222/07) The applicant, Vesna Damnjanović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Obrenovac (Serbia). She has two daughters, born in 1996 and 1998.   In April 2003 Ms   Damnjanović filed a claim with Pirot Municipal Court seeking dissolution of her marriage, sole custody of her children and child maintenance. In August 2003 the children’s father took them away to Pirot and subsequently remained uncooperative in the care proceedings. The applicant was granted interim custody in September 2003 and sole custody in March 2006. As the father refused to comply with the final custody judgment, the domestic courts twice imposed fines on him and, ultimately, in April 2008 ordered the physical transfer to the applicant of her daughters; however, following the children’s protests, the applicant was unable to assume physical custody and requested that additional preparatory meetings be held first. In the meantime, the children’s father, an army officer, was found guilty of parental child abduction and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. That decision was upheld on appeal.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that she has been prevented from exercising her parental rights in respect of her daughters due to the non-enforcement of the interim custody order and of the final custody judgment issued in her favour, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   The Court noted, in particular, that: the children had been willing to spend time with their mother but had made it clear that they wanted to continue living with their father; the Social Care Centre, itself a State body, had played a constructive role in the proceedings; the domestic courts had attempted to secure the father’s compliance with the custody judgment including the imposition of fines; and, lastly, but most importantly, in April 2008 the applicant had ultimately been unable to physically assume custody of her daughters in the absence of their explicit consent. While sympathising with the applicant’s predicament, the Court concluded that the State had taken the necessary steps to enforce the final custody judgment in her favour and therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1. Similarly, the Court found that the State had taken the necessary steps to enforce the interim custody order and the final custody judgment in the circumstances of the applicant’s case and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   8. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Cemalettin Canlı v. Turkey (no. 22427/04) The applicant, Cemalettin Canlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ankara. In 2003 while criminal proceedings were pending against him, a police report entitled “information form on additional offences” was submitted to the court, mentioning two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him in the past for membership of illegal organisations. However, in 1990, the applicant had been acquitted in the first criminal case and the second set of proceedings had been discontinued. The applicant complained that the records kept by the police and the publication in the national press of the details of those records had had adverse effects on his private life within the meaning of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). He further relied on Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that Mr   Canlı had never been convicted by a court of law concerning the allegations of membership of illegal organisations. It thus considered that referring to the applicant as a “member” of such organisations in the police report had been potentially damaging to his reputation, and that the keeping and forwarding to the criminal court of that inaccurate police report had constituted an interference with Mr   Canlı’s right to respect for his private life. The Court observed that the relevant Regulations obliged the police to include in their records all information regarding the outcome of any criminal proceedings relating to the accusations. Nevertheless, not only had the information in the report been false, but it had also omitted any mention of the applicant’s acquittal and the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings in 1990. Moreover, the decisions rendered in 1990 had not been appended to the report when it had been submitted to the court in 2003. Those failures, in the opinion of the Court, had been contrary to the unambiguous requirements of the Police Regulations and had removed a number of substantial procedural safeguards provided by domestic law for the protection of the applicant’s rights under Article   8. Accordingly, the Court found that the drafting and submission to the court by the police of the report in question had not been “in accordance with the law”. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8, and that there was no need to examine separately the complaints under Articles   6 and   13. Mr   Canlı was awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) Köksal Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 21007/04) The applicant, Köksal Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Giresun (Turkey).   Mr   Özdemir was arrested on suspicion of stealing a car and was taken into police custody on 26   March 2002. During his arrest he tried to escape and fell on the pavement. The public prosecutor’s office ordered the applicant’s release on 27   March 2002 at 1.25   a.m., but he was not released from the police station until 1.30   p.m. the following day. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant alleged that he had been ill ‑ treated while in police custody. He also complained under Article   5   §   1   (c) (right to liberty and security) that his continued detention in police custody after his release had been ordered by the public prosecutor’s office had been unlawful.   The Court considered that the evidence submitted to it suggested that the injuries observed on Mr   Özdemir’s body could have been the result of his fall while trying to escape arrest, and that it was not therefore capable of establishing the existence of the alleged ill-treatment. Accordingly, this part of the application was declared inadmissible.   As to the applicant’s complaint that his continued detention in police custody had been unlawful, the Court noted that the maximum period of police custody laid down by law was 24   hours, unless an extension was granted by the competent authority. That had not been the case here. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1   (c) and ruled that the present judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) M. Tosun v. Turkey (no. 33104/04) The applicant, Mustafa Tosun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.   In November 1995 Mr   Tosun was arrested on suspicion of attempting to undermine the constitutional order. He was convicted as charged in December 2002 and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2003 the judgment was quashed on appeal; the retrial is still pending. He was released on bail in May 2006. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, nine years and almost eight months, of the applicant’s detention on remand and a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length, 13   years and still pending, of the criminal proceedings against him. Mr   Tosun was awarded EUR   13,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 (fairness) Serin v. Turkey (no. 18404/04) The Court found the above violation on account of the amount of the court fees charged to the applicant and the refusal to grant him legal aid.     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) Aksoy and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14037/04, 14052/04, 14072/04, 14077/04, 14092/04, 14098/04, 14100/04, 14103/04, 14112/04, 14115/04, 14120/04, 14122/04 and 14129/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Pınar Şener v. Turkey (no. 17883/04)     ***   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 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] 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.