CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 février 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 } .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   97 10.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Georgia, Portugal, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Two repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article   10 Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland (application no. 3514/02) The applicants are: the publishing company Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy ; its former editor-in-chief, Matti Paloaro, a Finnish national, now deceased, who was born in 1942; and, a freelance journalist, Pentti Eerikäinen, also a Finnish national who, born in 1946, lives in Kauvatsa (Finland). Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that they had been ordered by the Supreme Court to pay damages because of a newspaper article Mr Eerikäinen had written in 1997 concerning criminal proceedings pending against a business woman accused of deceiving the Social Insurance Institution and insurance companies. The Court observed that the reporting on the criminal case in the 1997 article had been based on public facts, concerned a matter of legitimate public interest and its purpose had been to contribute to a public discussion. It concluded that the applicants had not gone too far when communicating the identity of the accused business woman to the public, and that, by having ordered them to pay damages, the Finnish Government had violated Article 10 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 34 Novinskiy v. Russia (application no. 11982/02) The applicant, Ernest Novinskiy, was a Russian national who was born in 1963. He died in 2009 when he was still serving a prison sentence in the Samara Region (Russia) for organising and inciting others to murder and bribery. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Novinskiy, and subsequently his surviving wife, complained about the appalling conditions of his detention during different periods in 2001. They also complained under Article   34 (right of individual petition) that, in connection with his application to the European Court, the prison authorities had put pressure on Mr Novinskiy. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 as the applicant had been obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell, with only 1 to 2 square metres for himself, together with many other inmates for a period of 5 months and 25 days in 2001. The Court further found a violation of Article   34 on account of the authorities having coerced a witness who supported Mr Novinskiy into withdrawing his statements in exchange for being released on parole, and having brought and interviewed that witness, after his release and without relation to any criminal proceedings, to a police station under threat of using force or fining him. The Court awarded Mr   Novinskiy’s widow 4,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Güçlü v. Turkey (no. 27690/03) The applicant, İbrahim Güçlü, is a Turkish national who was born in 1949. He is a lawyer and at the time of the events was also vice-chairman of the HAK-PAR (Rights and Freedoms Party). When the application was lodged, he was imprisoned in Ankara (Turkey). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained about his criminal conviction for disseminating separatist propaganda, on account of a speech he had given at a press conference on “democracy and the Kurdish problem”. After examining the speech as a whole the Court held that the applicant had intended to criticise the actions of the Turkish authorities in the south-east of the country and, in particular, to encourage an open debate on political and historical issues. It noted that the domestic authorities had failed to have sufficient regard to the public’s right to be informed of a different perspective on a matter of general interest. The Court concluded unanimously that Mr Güçlü’s conviction amounted to a violation of Article 10 and awarded him EUR   5,000 for all damage sustained, and 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kindler de Barahona v. Portugal (no. 31720/05) The applicants were owners of land that was expropriated in 1975 in the context of a land reform policy. They alleged that the amount of compensation awarded did not correspond to “fair compensation” and complained about the delay in assessing and paying the final compensation. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bezzubikova v. Russia (no. 32048/03) The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), on account of the protracted failure to execute a judicial decision ordering that the applicant be allocated subsidised housing.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 §1 (length) Kharitonashvili v. Georgia (no. 41957/04)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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-Malinowski (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.