CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 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 } .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   894 9.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bosnia-Herzegovina, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 30   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) Eloranta v. Finland (application no. 4799/03) The applicant, Vera Eloranta, is a Finnish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Masku (Finland).   Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms   Eloranta complained of the length of criminal proceedings against her for fraud.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length, eight years, of the proceedings against the applicant. The Court awarded Ms   Eloranta 3,300   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova (no. 19245/03) The applicant, Unistar Ventures GmbH, is a company incorporated in Germany.   In 2000 the applicant company concluded a contract with a Moldovan State-owned body for the purchase and control of Air Moldova. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant company complained about the non-enforcement of a judgment of August 2002 which declared that contract null and void and ordered the restitution of the applicant company’s investment.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded the applicant company EUR   6,700,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   9,855 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 2 Wojciechowski v. Poland (no. 5422/04) The applicant, Janusz Wojciechowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Lublin (Poland).   Arrested on suspicion of, in particular, acting in an organised and armed criminal group, Mr   Wojciechowski was remanded in custody in October 2001. In December 2004 he was convicted of that charge and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and a fine. The conviction was confirmed in October 2005. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand. He further complained under Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence) that,   before the opening of his trial, a court stated that he had committed the offences he had been charged with.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, three years and two months, of the applicant’s detention until his conviction by a competent court. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   2. Mr   Wojciechowski was awarded EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§   1, 3 and 4 Matyush v. Russia (no. 14850/03) The applicant, Natalya Albertovna Matyush, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Solnechnogorsk (Russia).   In March 1999 Ms   Matyush was arrested on suspicion of fraud; she was released in April 2003 pending trial. She was subsequently convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, upheld on appeal. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of her detention in a facility in Omsk and the unlawfulness and excessive length of her detention on remand. She relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that it had frequently found a violation of Article 3 on account of overcrowding in Russian detention facilities and that the Government had not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the applicant’s case. The fact that the applicant had been obliged for more than four years to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates had been in itself sufficient to have caused distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to have aroused in her feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention from 8   March 1999 to 21   April 2003 in Omsk detention facility no.   IZ-55/1.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1 on account of the applicant’s detention on remand from 17   to 21   April 2003 and no violation of that provision on account of her detention from 1   July 2002 to 17   April 2003. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, four years, one month and 14   days, of Ms   Matyush’s detention. Lastly, the Court noted that the domestic authorities had failed to decide “speedily” on the lawfulness of her detention at the final instance, in violation of Article   5   §   4. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (Haydar Ceylan) Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Demirbaş and Others v. Turkey (nos. 50973/06, 8672/07 and 8722/07) The applicants, Cem Demirbaş, born in 1977, and Haydar Ceylan and Binnaz Demirbaş, born in 1974, are Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul.   In April 1999 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and placed in custody. They were released pending trial in February 2007; the criminal proceedings against them are still pending. Relying on Article   5 (right to liberty and security), all the applicants complained about the excessive length of their detention pending criminal proceedings and that they had no effective domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention or an enforceable right to compensation. Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants also all complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. Mr   Ceylan further alleged that, while in police custody, he was punched, kicked, subjected to falaka (beating on the soles of the feet), hosed with water and forced to remain standing for long periods, and that the authorities failed to punish those responsible, in breach of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court considered that in the absence of a convincing explanation by the Government, Haydar Ceylan’s injuries recorded in three medical reports of April 1999 had been the result of treatment for which the Turkish Government had been responsible. The Court also concluded that the domestic authorities had not effectively investigated Haydar Ceylan’s allegations of ill-treatment. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 in respect of Haydar   Ceylan. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, almost seven years, of the applicants’ detention pending the criminal proceedings against them. The Court noted that the applicants had had no effective domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and no enforceable right to compensation for their excessively long detention, in violation of Article   5   §§   4 and   5. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   17,500 to Haydar Ceylan and EUR   7,500, each, to Cem Demirbaş and Binnaz Demirbaş. For costs and expenses, it awarded EUR   1,250 to Haydar Ceylan, and EUR   1,000, each, to Cem Demirbaş and Binnaz Demirbaş. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey (No. 3) (no. 11976/03) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Germany: Hıdır Ateş who was born in 1951 and lives in Berlin; and, Hünkar Demirel who was born in 1979 and lives in Neu Isenburg. They are the owner and editor of a weekly newspaper, Yedinci Gündem .   Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about their conviction in June 2002 for publishing statements by Öcalan and the ensuing closure of their newspaper for seven days. Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), they also complained that they were not notified of the principal public prosecutor’s written opinion on their case on appeal.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10 concerning the infringement of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, and a further violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the non-communication of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. It further held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Menemen Minibüsçüler Odası v. Turkey (no. 44088/04) The applicant company, Menemen Minibüsçüler Odası, is a Chamber of Commerce. A private transport company operated within the Chamber, which has its head office in Izmir (Turkey).   The applicant company complained that it had been unable to intervene in proceedings concerning an operating licence awarded to it by the Governor’s Office. At the end of the proceedings the applicant company was obliged to cease its transport activities. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), it submitted that it had been unable to put forward its arguments before the courts dealing with the case and that it had been deprived of its right to be heard.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Pehlivan v. Turkey (no. 4233/03) The applicant, Mehmet Pehlivan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul.   In April 1996 Mr   Pehlivan was arrested on suspicion of homicide and membership of the PKK. In March 2002 he was convicted of homicide and sentenced to 15   years’ imprisonment; he was released in view of the length of his detention during the criminal proceedings against him. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the excessive length of   his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   He further relied on Article   6   §3   (a) (right to be informed promptly   and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, approximately six years, of the applicant’s detention on remand, and a further violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length, approximately eight years, of the criminal proceedings against him. Mr   Pehlivan was awarded EUR   6,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation Article 3 (treatment) Violations of Article 3 (investigation) Selvi v. Turkey (no 5047/02) The applicant, Yahya Selvi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in İzmir. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), Mr   Selvi complained, in particular, that he was ill-treated by officers of the anti-terrorist branch of the İzmir police when they came to his house in May 2001 in search of his uncle, suspected of having participated in an illegal demonstration.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   3 concerning the applicant’s allegation that he had been ill-treated by police officers as the material in the case file did not prove that allegation beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. Mr   Selvi was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tanay v. Turkey (no. 18753/04) The applicant, Mehmet Tanay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.   Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that his case requesting increased compensation in an expropriation decision in his favour was declared time-barred due to a mistake made by the Court of Cassation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court awarded Mr   Tanay EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (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 Cignoli and Others v. Italy (no. 68309/01) The Court found the above violation on account of the inadequacy of the expropriation compensation awarded to the applicants.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kudić v. Bosnia-Herzegovina (no. 28971/05) Lucreţia Popa and Others v. Romania (no. 13451/03) Pintilie v. Romania (no. 30680/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Avram v. Moldova (no. 2886/05)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Tudor-Auto S.R.L. (No. 1) v. Moldova and Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. v. Moldova, and Tudor-Auto S.R.L. (No. 2) v. Moldova (nos. 36344/03, 36341/03 and 30346/05)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Popescu and Dimeca v. Romania (no. 17799/03) The Court found the above violations in these six cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all, and the subsequent quashing of the final judgment in the case of Tudor-Auto S.R.L. . The Court held that in the case of Tudor-Auto S.R.L. (No. 1) and Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Tudor-Auto S.R.L. (No. 2) the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cărpineanu and Others v. Romania (no. 26356/02) The Court found the above violation on account of the applicants’ inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ciocan and Others v. Romania (no. 6580/03) The Court found the above violation on account of the failure by the authorities to provide the applicants with adequate and sufficient assistance in their attempts to secure the enforcement of final judgments ordering a private company to reinstate them in their previous posts.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Moroianu v. Romania (no. 16304/04) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning an action for recovery of property.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mehmet Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 29016/04) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the failure to enforce a final judicial decision awarding the applicant additional expropriation compensation.   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Shireby v. the United Kingdom (no. 28071/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that, as a widower, he had been refused Widow’s Payment.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Áron Kiss v. Hungary (no. 15670/04) Béla Szabó v. Hungary (no. 37470/06) Lázló Németh v. Hungary (no. 30211/05) Sefcsuk v. Hungary (no. 37501/06) Klewinowski v. Poland (no. 43161/04) Korkut v. Turkey (no. 10693/03) Mustafa Açıkgöz v. Turkey (no. 34588/03) Şevki Şahin v. Turkey (no. 7190/05)     ***   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.