CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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   114 17.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Poland, Romania, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Vilen v. Finland (application no. 22635/04) The applicant, Pauli Vilén, is a Finnish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Parola (Finland). On the basis of a medical certificate signed by his doctor, the applicant requested sickness benefits for a period of almost seven months in 2002; however, his request was refused by the Social Insurance Institution. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Vilén complained that he had not had access to the documents prepared by the Social Insurance Institution’s medical expert for the examination of his case. The European Court of Human Rights found that the expert’s reports had not been communicated to the applicant during the proceedings before the Appellate Board for Social Insurance, which, as a result, had deprived him from the possibility to participate properly in the proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and awarded Mr   Vilén 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 §   1 Gospodarczyk v. Poland (no. 6134/03) The applicant, Mirosław Gospodarczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Zielona Góra (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), Mr   Gospodarczyk complained about the excessive amount of court fees that he had been required to pay in order to proceed with a claim for compensation. The Court, having noted in particular that by claiming before the domestic courts an amount significantly higher than the original value of his property, the applicant himself had been responsible for the high amount of fees requested. It therefore concluded that the domestic courts’ refusal to exempt the applicant from the fee due had not deprived him from access to court and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 Jałowiecki v. Poland (no. 34030/07) The applicant, Stanisław Jałowiecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Stronie Śląskie (Poland). The domestic courts found in a 2006 judgment that he had violated the Polish legislation on lustration by declaring, in April 2004, that he had not collaborated with the communist-era secret services, although in fact he had. Relying on Article   6   §   1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3 (right to a fair trial), Mr Jałowiecki complained that the lustration proceedings were unfair. The Court observed that if a state pursued lustration measures, it had to ensure that the persons affected enjoyed all procedural guarantees during the lustration proceedings. The Court, having found that Mr Jałowiecki had not had an opportunity to successfully challenge the domestic law on lustration in his appeal and cassation actions, held therefore unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3, in that the lustration proceedings against him, taken as a whole, had been unfair. The Court also held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ileana Lazăr v. Romania (no. 5647/02) The applicant, Ileana Lazăr, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Râmnicu-Sărat (Romania). She relied, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) regarding a mill and adjacent land belonging to her which were unlawfully nationalised in 1971. She complained about the right to retain possession granted to the Romanian State in respect of her property   until such time as   she     reimbursed the value (disputed by her) of the State’s investments in the mill. The Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 because the interference by the authorities with Ms Lazăr’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions was in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and was not disproportionate since the balance payable had been based on an expert report drawn up in adversarial proceedings, and part of the land had been returned to Ms Lazăr. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Aslan and Demir v. Turkey (nos. 38940/02 and 5197/03) Ek and Şıktaş v. Turkey (nos. 6058/02 and 18074/03) The applicants, Mahmut Aslan, Hüseyin Demir, Mehmet Şirin Ek and Hüseyin Şıktaş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1960, 1975 and 1978 respectively and live in Turkey. Relying on Article   6   §   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of one’s own choosing) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained about having been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody on charges of membership of an illegal organisation. They also complained about their subsequent convictions. The Court, having noted that restrictions in respect of access to a lawyer had been applied systematically to anyone held in police custody in connection with an offence falling under the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts during that period, held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article   6   §   3   (c) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   1,500, each, to Mr   Aslan, Mr   Demir and Mr   Şıktaş. For costs and expenses, the Court awarded EUR   1,000 to Mr   Şıktaş, and EUR   1,000 (less the EUR   850 received in legal aid from the Council of Europe) to Mr   Aslan. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Baızı v. Turkey (no. 7306/02) The applicant, Ebrahim Baizi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He relied, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), complaining that he had not been brought promptly before a judge following his arrest by the anti-terrorist branch of the İzmir Security Directorate. The Court found that it had not been necessary to detain Mr Baizi for five days in police custody without judicial supervision and held unanimously that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It awarded the applicant EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 2 Balcı v. Turkey (no. 31079/02) The applicants, Keziban Balcı and Binali Balcı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1965 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). Relying, in particular, on Article 2 (right to life), they alleged that the authorities were responsible for the death of their 11-year-old son as a result of his fall from a swing in a park. They complained that the criminal proceedings had not established where responsibility lay and could not be considered as having afforded them compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 2 because the investigation conducted into the child’s death had been satisfactory and individual criminal responsibility had been established under the domestic law in the present case. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) İbrahim Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 16500/04) The applicant, İbrahim Öztürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance), he complained that, arrested for an attempted bomb attack, a confession had been obtained from him through torture and that he had not had access to a lawyer during his police custody. The Court observed that the evidence collected by the police while Mr Öztürk was in police custody had served as the basis for his conviction and that neither the subsequent assistance of a lawyer nor the opportunity to dispute the evidence against him at his trial had remedied the breach of Mr Öztürk’s defence rights that had been caused by the lack of legal assistance during police custody. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mehmet Koç v. Turkey (no. 36686/07) The applicant, Mehmet Koç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Koç complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 as the criminal proceedings, having taken eight years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction, had been too long. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 10 Saygılı and Falakaoğlu v. Turkey (no. 38991/02) The applicants, Fevzi Saygılı and Bülent Falakaoğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the owner and the editor-in-chief of a daily newspaper, Yeni Evrensel . They were sentenced to fines by the domestic court for publishing in October 2000 the declarations of detainees belonging to illegal armed organisations. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complained about their conviction and sentence, and the temporary closure of the newspaper. Relying further on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), they complained that they were denied a fair hearing. By five votes to two, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article   10 in respect of the conviction of the applicants, on account of them not having complied with their duties and responsibilities, as owner and editor-in-chief, to take good care not to disseminate information likely to provoke violent reactions, especially in situations of conflict and tension. The Court further rejected the applicants’ remaining complaint under Article 6. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 8 Onur v. the United Kingdom (no. 27319/07) The applicant, Ümit Onur, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978. He arrived in the United Kingdom in 1989 but he was deported   to Turkey in July 2007 following a conviction for robbery. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Onur complained about his deportation. The Court accepted that the applicant’s deportation interfered with his right to a private and family life but   held unanimously   that there had been no violation of Article   8,   because, inter alia ,   Mr Onur, his current partner and their very young children could have all settled in Turkey without exceptional difficulties. (The judgment is available in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raised an issue which had already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dumbravă v. Romania (no. 25234/03) In this case the Court found the above violation concerning an action to conclude a sale contract.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In Akan the applicant also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Akan v. Turkey (no. 9574/03)   Aras v. Turkey (no. 1895/05)     ***   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 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.