CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .sC6C0EBF2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   863 2.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Armenia, Poland, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 27   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 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (b) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 Kirakosyan v. Armenia (application no. 31237/03) Mkhitaryan v. Armenia (no. 22390/05) Tadevosyan v. Armenia (no. 41698/04) The applicants are three Armenian nationals: Lavrent Kirakosyan and Arman Mkhitaryan who were born in 1960 and 1965 respectively and live in Karakert (Armenia); and, Myasnik Tadevosyan who was born in 1944 and lives in Mrgashat (Armenia).   In March 2003 the first two applicants were visited at home by police officers in connection with their participation in protest rallies about the presidential elections; following an altercation, they were arrested and taken to their local police station. Mr Tadevosyan was also arrested at home in May 2004 on account of an altercation with the police who had stopped his car for a control. The cases concerned the applicants’ ensuing sentence to ten days’ administrative detention for disobeying the lawful orders of the police and using obscene language. In particular, they complained about the conditions of their detention, the unfairness of the proceedings against them and the fact that they did not have a clear and accessible right to appeal. They relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that in all three cases there had been a violation of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicants’ detention. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 taken together with Article   6   §   3   (b) and that there was no need to examine the other complaints under this Article. Lastly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   7. The Court awarded each applicant 4,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Gulczyński v. Poland (no. 33176/06) Janicki v. Poland (no. 35831/06) Marecki v. Poland (no. 20834/02) The applicants are three Polish nationals. Sebastian Gulczyński was born in 1976 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland). In   March 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery and theft; he was convicted as charged in November 2006 and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Damian Janicki was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre. In February 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of homicide and arson and convicted as charged in April 2008; the case against him is currently pending on appeal. Stanisław Marecki was born in 1955 and lives in Brzozów. In December 1998 he was arrested on charges of armed robbery and membership of a criminal gang. In December 2004 he was acquitted and released. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), all three applicants complained, in particular, about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and detention on remand.   The Court held unanimously that in all three cases there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand: three years and more than eight months, four years and more than four months, and four years and six months respectively. The Court awarded EUR   1,500 to Mr   Gulczyński and EUR   2,000 to Mr   Janicki in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Mr   Marecki made no claim under Article   41 (just satisfaction). (The judgments are available only in English.)   Just satisfaction SC Ruxandra Trading SRL v. Romania (no. 28333/02) The applicant company, SC Ruxandra Trading SRL, is a company incorporated under Romanian law, having its registered office in Bucharest.   In a judgment of 12 July 2007 the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the authorities’ failure to execute a final judgment of 8 June 2008 in which the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the city council to issue the applicant company with a permit to erect a permanent building and to enter into a long-term lease agreement with it in respect of the land in question. The court moreover considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) as to pecuniary damage was not yet ready for decision.   In the judgment delivered today, the Court held unanimously that Romania was to execute the Bucharest Court of Appeal’s judgment of 8 June 2000, failing which it was to pay the applicant EUR   200,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 Adırbelli and others v. Turkey (no. 20775/03) The applicants, Yetgin Adırbelli, Havil Adırbelli, Gülek Adırbelli, Metin Goran, Mehmet Goran, Ali Nas, Beşir Gasyak, and Resul (Malğaz) Kervanoğlu are Turkish nationals who were members of the People’s Democratic Party (DEHAP) in Sırnak (Turkey).   On 27   January 2003 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of having participated in an armed attack on a military battalion during which a soldier was killed. They were released shortly after and in March 2003 a decision was issued not to bring criminal proceedings against them due to insufficient evidence. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained, in particular, about the unlawfulness of their arrest and detention in police custody.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§   1, 4   and   5 and awarded each applicant EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Erdal Aslan v. Turkey (nos. 25060/02 and 1705/03) The applicant, Erdal Aslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and at the relevant time was imprisoned in Bartın (Turkey).   Mr Aslan was arrested on 29 April 1996 in the context of a police operation concerning a bomb plot attributed to the TKEP/P (Communist Party of the Workers of Turkey/Leninist), an illegal armed organisation. He was held in police custody until 14 May 1996, then placed in pre-trial detention. A forensic report prepared on 13 May 1996 concluded that the applicant required three days’ sick leave on account of partially blood-filled injuries to the soles of his feet and his toes. The applicant was convicted at final instance on 6 May 2003, and sentenced to life imprisonment for armed activities aimed at overturning the constitutional order.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in police custody and complained about the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations, since the criminal proceedings against the accused police officers had become time-barred. He also relied on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court noted that the Turkish Government had not provided plausible explanations as to the origin of the injuries in question. It therefore considered that the injuries found on the applicant’s body had originated in the treatment sustained during his period in police custody, for which the State was responsible. As that treatment could only have been inflicted intentionally, in order to obtain a confession or information, it amounted to “torture”. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.   In addition, the Court considered that the national authorities had not shown the diligence and decisiveness required in view of the seriousness of the circumstances, in order to prevent any appearance of tolerance for the illegal acts committed by State agents and to complete the proceedings before they became time-barred, in further violation of Article 3.   The Court noted that during his detention in police custody the applicant had been deprived of the assistance of a lawyer, and that he had given a detailed confession and provided self-incriminating evidence. The disputed confessions had been used, at least in part, as the basis for his conviction, although they had been obtained in violation of Article 3, and thus in violation of the right not to incriminate oneself. Consequently, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)).   Furthermore, noting that the overall duration of the pre-trial detention to which the applicant was subjected – more than five years and seven months – was excessive, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It also concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the absence of an effective remedy that would have enabled the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty imposed on the applicant to be verified.   Finally, the Court held that it was unnecessary to examine the remainder of the complaints under Articles 5, 6, 13 and 14 and awarded Mr Aslan EUR   20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 10 Gemici v. Turkey (no. 25471/02) The applicant, Ahmet Gemici, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). At the relevant time, he was the chairman of the local branch of the Labour Party (“EMEP”).   On 16 November 1999 the police searched the branch’s premises and seized copies of a party magazine whose distribution and sale had been banned by an order issued on the same date. The applicant claimed that he had not been informed of the ban on the magazines in question. The prosecutor brought proceedings against the applicant for failure to comply with the ban. The İzmir District Court ordered the applicant to pay a fine of about 184 United States dollars, without holding a hearing. The criminal court dismissed the objection lodged by the applicant against his conviction, also without holding a hearing   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant alleged that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression and complained that the criminal courts had not held an audience.   Noting that the applicant had never had an opportunity to appear in person before the judges who were called on to rule on his case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to hold a hearing during the criminal proceedings against him.   Moreover, the Court considered that the applicant’s conviction for possession of the prohibited magazines represented an interference with his right to freedom to communicate information and ideas, which was protected by Article 10. The Court emphasised that the refusal to comply with a judicial decision could only be considered reprehensible if the latter was brought to the knowledge of the individual concerned. It noted that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant had been informed of the decision to ban the magazine, and that the order had been issued on the same day as the police search. It considered that the applicant could not have foreseen, “to a degree that was reasonable”, that possession of the magazines in question could lead to criminal sanctions being imposed on him. It concluded that there had also been a violation of Article 10. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   180 in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kadiroğlu v. Turkey (no. 33634/04) The applicant, Turgay Kadiroğlu, is a Turkish national who was born 1960 and lives in Samsun (Turkey).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings that resulted in his acquittal.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length (eight years and seven months) of the criminal proceedings in question. The applicant was awarded EUR   4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §   1 (fairness) No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) Keş v. Turkey (no. 17174/03) The applicant, Mustafa Keş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Simav (Turkey).   In 2002 he was convicted by an Assize Court for drug possession and trafficking as a member of a gang and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and a fine. He alleged before the Court of Cassation that the Assize Court had not taken evidence from certain witnesses. The Court of Cassation upheld the Assize Court’s judgment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 6 § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), the applicant complained that certain witnesses were not examined and that he had not been given access to the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation.   The Court noted that the domestic courts had carried out a thorough and careful analysis of the various items of evidence that were relevant in assessing and evaluating the credibility of the charges against the applicant. The witnesses had been examined during the preliminary investigation, and the Assize Court had considered that examining the witnesses in question was not essential to establishing the truth. In this connection, the Court noted that the applicant had not explained how examination of these witnesses would have been decisive in establishing the truth, in that their statements were not the sole items of evidence on which the court had based the applicant’s conviction. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (d) with regard to the questioning of witnesses.   Furthermore, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the failure to communicate the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. It held that its judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     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 Dobranici v. Romania (no. 27448/02) Giuglan and Others v. Romania (no. 3834/04) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the State’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Predescu v. Romania (no. 21447/03) The Court found the above violation in this case, which concerned the impossibility to make use of a flat even though the courts had recognised the unlawful nature of its nationalisation, on account of its sale by the State to third parties.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ardıçoğlu v. Turkey (no. 23249/04) The Court found the above violation in this case, which concerned deprivation of the applicants’ coastal property without compensation.   (1 st and 2 nd applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Aydoğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 41967/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the State security court in criminal proceedings against the applicants.     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) Jagiełło v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 8934/05) Krzewski v. Poland (no. 11700/04) Kufel v. Poland (no. 9959/06) Pióro and Łukasik v. Poland (no. 8362/02) Serafin and Others v. Poland (no. 51123/07) Śliwa v. Poland (no. 10265/06) Apahideanu v. Romania (no. 19895/02) Petre Ionescu v. Romania (no. 12534/02) Aziz Aydın Arslan v. Turkey (no. 28353/02) Erdal Çalişkan v. Turkey (no. 36062/04)     ***   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.