CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 janvier 2009

.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 } .sC9E58E76 { width:26.63pt; display:inline-block } .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   19 13.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Armenia, Belgium, Finland, Georgia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 44 Chamber judgments, none of which is 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 11 Amiryan v. Armenia (application no. 31553/03) Gasparyan v. Armenia (no. 35944/03) Sapeyan v. Armenia (no. 35738/03) The applicants are three Armenian nationals: Sargis Amiryan who was born in 1948 and lives in Ashtarak (Armenia); Maksim Gasparyan who was born in 1948 and lives in Yerevan; and, Zhora Sapeyan who was born in 1954 and also lives in Ashtarak. Relying, in particular, on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about their administrative penalties for having participated in unauthorised demonstrations in February 2003. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   11 of the Convention in all three cases and awarded each applicant 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) Taxquet v. Belgium (no. 926/05) The applicant, Richard Taxquet, is a Belgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Angleur (Belgium). He was accused in 2003 of murdering a government minister and attempting to murder the minister’s partner. He was sentenced in January 2004 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (right to a fair trial and right to examine witnesses), Mr Taxquet complained that he had not had a fair hearing. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). It awarded the applicant EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   8,173.22 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) Two violations of Article 13 Violation of Article 8 Sorvisto v. Finland (no. 19348/04 The applicant, Juha Sorvisto, is a Finnish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Espoo (Finland). Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr   Sorvisto complained of the excessive length of two sets of criminal and one set of civil proceedings against him for notably aggravated fraud. He also relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), complaining about a search of a storage facility during which material containing allegedly privileged information between him and his lawyer was seized. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   13 on account of the excessive length, over 14   years and six months to date, of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. The Court further held that there had been violations of the same provisions on account of the excessive length, nine years and eight months to date, of the second set of criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. Lastly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   8 in regard to the search and seizure measures. Mr Sorvisto was awarded EUR   12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   9,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Aliev v. Georgia (no. 522/04) The applicant, Abdulhamit Aliev, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and has been living in Georgia as a refugee since March 1999. His details were circulated by Interpol and he was arrested by the Georgian authorities in May 2002 under an arrest warrant issued by the Russian authorities. He was released in January 2005. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complained in particular of his conditions of detention in Tbilisi no. 5 Prison and of ill-treatment inflicted on him there on the night of 3 to 4 October 2002. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention and the lack of an investigation into his allegations of ill ‑ treatment. It awarded Mr Aliev EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 8 Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia (no. 37048/04) The applicant, Giorgi Nikolaishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Tbilisi (Georgia). Summoned as a witness in a murder case in which his brother was a suspect, Mr Nikolaishvili complained about the unlawfulness of his ensuing arrest. He alleged in particular that the authorities arrested him in order to oblige his fugitive brother to give himself up to the authorities. He relied on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). Further relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he also complained that his photograph as a “wanted person” was publicly posted in police stations.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1 on account of the applicant’s arrest in circumstances undermining his right to security of person and a violation of Article   5   §   1   (c) on account of the absence of a valid court order authorising Mr   Nikolaishvili’s detention on remand for certain periods. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of a lack of sufficient reasons for his detention on remand and a violation of Article   5   §   4 on account of the absence of an oral hearing during the judicial review of 24   January 2005. Lastly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   8 on account of the public posting at various police stations of the applicant’s photograph as a “wanted person”. Mr Nikolaishvili was awarded EUR   8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Janusz Dudek v. Poland (no. 39712/05) The applicant, Janusz Dudek, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Częstochowa (Poland). A police officer, Mr Dudek was suspended from duty in 2003 on charges of abuse of power. That suspension was lifted in October 2007 but the investigation remains pending. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of those criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 concerning the excessive length, over five years, of the criminal proceedings, and awarded Mr   Dudek EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Lewandowski and Lewandowska v. Poland (no. 15562/02) The applicants, Czesław Lewandowski and Danuta Lewandowska, are Polish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1953 respectively and live in Legionowo (Poland). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained that their son, Paweł Lewandowski, now deceased, was ill-treated by the police following his arrest in August 2000 when, on an evening out drinking beer, a friend of his had broken a windowpane of a notice board. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of ill-treatment of the applicants’ son and a further violation of the same Article on account of the lack of an effective investigation. The Court awarded the applicants EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Filon v. Poland (no. 39163/06) Lemejda v. Poland (no. 11825/07) Łoś v. Poland (no. 24023/06) The applicants are three Polish nationals: Alicja Fiłon and Halina Maria Łoś were both born in 1952 and live in Józefosław (Poland) and Warsaw, respectively; and, Maciej Lemejda who was born in 1977 and also lives in Warsaw. In June 2003 Alicja Fiłon and Halina Maria Łoś were both detained on suspicion of fraud committed in an organised criminal group. In December 2006 both applicants were released while the criminal proceedings against them were still pending. Maciej Lemejda was detained in July 2004 on suspicion of, in particular, drug trafficking. He was released in 2008 while the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. All three applicants, relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), complained that the length of their detention on remand was excessive. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 in all three cases on account of the length of the applicants’ detention. They were each awarded EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mirosław Orzechowski v. Poland (no. 13526/07) The applicant, Mirosław Orzechowski, was born in 1963 and lives in Szydłowiec (Poland). At the relevant time he was unemployed and did not receive benefits. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Orzechowski complained about the refusal to grant him legal assistance to file a cassation appeal against a judgment in which his claim for compensation against a court bailiff was dismissed. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 concerning the unreasoned refusal to grant legal aid in the cassation proceedings, and awarded Mr   Orzechowski EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Rybacki v. Pol   and (no. 52479/99) The applicant, Andrzej Rybacki, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Włocławek (Poland). Mr Rybacki was detained in May 1996 on charges of aggravated robbery. The applicant was ultimately sentenced in 1999 to a term in prison and a fine. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained that his detention on remand had been excessive. He also complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) that for a certain period during the investigation he had been unable to communicate with his defence counsel out of earshot of a person appointed by the prosecutor. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, two years and nine months, of Mr   Rybacki’s detention. The Court also noted that the restrictions   on the applicant’s contacts with his lawyer had lasted for seven months and the authorities had failed to give reasons to show that they had,   in the circumstances of the case, been necessary and justified.     The Court therefore held   that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   3   (c) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo v. Portugal (no. 30844/05) The applicants are Francisco Gustavo de Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, who was born in 1957 and lives in Oeiras (Portugal), and Pedro Miguel de Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, who was born in 1949 and died in 2007. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they alleged that they had been deprived of land belonging to them without receiving compensation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It considered that the question of the application of Article 41 was not yet ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bălăucă v. Romania (no. 23887/03) Bozian v. Romania (no. 8027/03) The applicants, Ion Bălăucă and Gheorghe Bozian, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1947 and 1949 respectively and live in Copălău and Iaşi (Romania). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination), they complained that they had been required to pay tax on the allowances they received on retirement. In both these cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 14 taken in conjunction with that Article. In the case of Bălăucă , the Court awarded the applicant EUR   2,700 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. In Bozian , it awarded the applicant EUR   1,400 for pecuniary damage and EUR   930 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Crnišanin and Others v. Serbia (nos. 35835/05, 43548/05, 43569/05 and 36986/06) The applicants, Mukadesa Crnišanin, Arifa Hamidović, Milodarka Kostić and Faza Paljevac, are Serbian citizens who were born in 1953, 1957, 1951 and 1955, respectively, and currently live in Novi Pazar (Serbia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about the failure of the state to enforce final court judgments given in their favour concerning monthly paid benefits, insurance and social security contributions. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   1,800 to Mukadesa Crnišanin and Arifa Hamidović, each, EUR   1,500 to Milodarka Kostić and EUR   1,300 to Faza Paljevac. For costs and expenses, the Court awarded each applicant EUR   300. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (e) Amer v. Turkey (no. 25720/02) The applicant, Yassir Faathelrahman Amer, is a Sudanese-Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and is currently serving a life sentence in a prison in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” for having killed a businessman by slitting his throat in 2001. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention in prison. He also alleged that he was not informed promptly, in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his arrest, in breach of Article 5 § 2 (right to liberty and security). Lastly, he complained in particular about the excessive length of the appeal proceedings in his case and that he was not provided with an interpreter to enable him to understand the accusations against him, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   §   3   (e) (right to have the assistance of an interpreter). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length, just over four years and nine months, of the criminal proceedings and a further violation of Article   6   §   1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3   (e). Mr   Amer was awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Ayhan Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 39656/03) The applicant, Ayhan Erdoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Istanbul. He is a practising lawyer. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr   Erdoğan complained that he was ordered to pay compensation to an Istanbul district mayor for having referred to him as “cruel and a bigot” in a petition for a client. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10 and awarded Mr   Erdoğan EUR   8,800 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,111 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bozlak and Others v. Turkey (no. 34740/03) The applicants, Murat Bozlak, Bahattin Günel and İsmail Arslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952, 1950 and 1946 respectively and live in Ankara. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complained in particular of the unfairness and excessive length of criminal proceedings against them for membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR   1,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 2 Halıs Akın v. Turkey (no. 30304/02) The applicant, Halis Akın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Van (Turkey). In June 2001 he was injured by shots fired by gendarmes as he was bringing sheep down from their pasture. The related judicial proceedings were discontinued because the Turkish courts found that the gendarmes had acted in accordance with section 11(3) of the Contraband Act (Law no. 1918). Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complained, in particular, that at the relevant time the legislation governing the use of firearms in frontier areas had been incompatible with the Convention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 and awarded the applicant EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 Mehmet Cevher İlhan v. Turkey (no. 15719/03) The applicant, Mehmet Cevher İlhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara. At the relevant time he was the Ankara representative of the daily newspaper Yeni Asya . Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complained of his criminal conviction as a journalist for articles published in Yeni Asya . The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 2 (life and investigation) Yeter v. Turkey (no. 33750/03) The applicants, Ayşe (Yeter) Yumli, Sırma Yeter, Mustafa Yeter and Dursun Yeter, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1924, 1955 and 1957 respectively. The first three applicants live in Turkey and the fourth in Austria. They are the wife, mother and brothers of Süleyman Yeter, who was born in 1962 and died on 7   March 1999. Mr   Süleyman Yeter was taken into police custody on 5   March 1999 on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life) and   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants alleged that their relative was tortured to death during his police custody and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 both concerning the right to life of the applicants’ relative and the lack of an effective investigation into his death. It further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the merits of the complaint under Article   3. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, Ayşe (Yeter) Yumli and Sırma Yeter were each awarded EUR   40,000, and Mustafa Yeter and Dursun Yeter were each awarded EUR   15,000. For costs and expenses, the applicants were awarded EUR   720. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Grosu v. Romania (no. 2611/02) In a judgment of 28 June 2007 the Court held that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In its judgment given today, it held that the Romanian State was to issue the applicant with title to the property concerned and awarded him EUR   50,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Marinescu v. Romania (no. 17955/05) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 No violation of Article 34 Nina Kazmina and Others v. Russia (nos. 746/05, 13570/06, 13574/06, 13576/06 and 13579/06 The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Arat and Others v. Turkey (nos. 42894/04, 42904/04, 42905/04, 42906/04, 42907/04, 42908/04, 42909/04 and 42910/04) Kemal Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 36424/06) Yavuz Sarıkaya v. Turkey (no. 11098/04) The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Berber v. Turkey (no. 20606/04) Gür and Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 473/03) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Thorne v. the United Kingdom (no. 28091/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaints that, as a widower, he had been refused widows’ benefits, notably Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance.     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) Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 47628/06) Arkadiusz Kubik v. Poland (no. 45097/05) Górkiewicz v. Poland (no. 41663/04) Kliber v. Poland (no. 11522/03) Makuszewski v. Poland (no. 35556/05) Pelizg v. Poland (no. 34342/06) Sokołowska v. Poland (no. 7743/06) Tekiela v. Poland (no. 35785/07) Wysocka and Others v. Poland (no. 23668/03) Załuska v. Poland (no. 41701/07)   Just satisfaction Uoti v. Finland (no. 61222/00)     ***   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 Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.