CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .s2C7B3542 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0000ff } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   145 24.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 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) Violation of Article 13 Jaanti v. Finland (application no. 39105/05) The applicant, Anssi Jaanti, is a Finnish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Espoo (Finland). In May 2002 Mr Jaanti was convicted of embezzlement and given a suspended prison sentence. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length, over six years and seven months, of the criminal proceedings against Mr   Jaanti, and a further violation of Article   13 in this connection. The Court awarded Mr   Jaanti 2,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Jgarkava v. Georgia (no. 7932/03) The applicant, Nodar Jgarkava, is a Georgian national who was born in 1939 and lives in the village of Lekhaindarao in Georgia. In 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted against him for abuse of his position as elected representative. A judgment was given on appeal in July 1998 discontinuing the criminal proceedings. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Jgarkava complained of the dismissal of his claim for compensation for pecuniary, physical and non-pecuniary damage. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because the Supreme Court had given its ruling on grounds that were neither clear not sufficient. It had distinguished between “rehabilitation” and “restoration of rights” for the first time without giving any explanation. The Court held unanimously that there was no call to award an amount in just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Errico v. Italy (no. 29768/05) The applicant, Giovanni Errico, is an Italian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Benevento (Italy). In 2002 his daughter was ordered to be placed in care by the Naples Youth Court following criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for sexual abuse. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained about being separated from his daughter, of the allegedly excessive length of the investigations against him and of the care proceedings, which he considered to be unfair. The Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 8 in respect of the child’s placement in care or the failure to hear representations from her father beforehand. It found that these measures had been proportionate and necessary for the protection of the health and the rights of the child, given the strong evidence of sexual abuse. The Court did find that there had been a violation of Article 8 on account of the delay in concluding the preliminary investigation in respect of the applicant and awarded him EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,150   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 Długołęcki v. Poland (no. 23806/03) The applicant, Jacek Długołęcki, is a Polish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Gdańsk. He is a journalist and at the relevant time was the editor in chief of a free newsletter, Kolbudzkie ABC, Periodical, Private, Independent (“ Periodyk, Prywatny, Niezależny” ). Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr Długołęcki complained about having been sanctioned by the Polish courts in 2002 to pay a fine to a charity and to reimburse the costs of the proceedings for insulting a local politician. The Court first found that the article written by Mr Długołęcki had been fairly balanced and of public interest. The Court then, having noted that Mr Długołęcki had abandoned journalistic activity following the criminal proceedings against him, concluded that they had had the detrimental effect of discouraging him entirely from contributing freely to public discussions in the future. The Court therefore held unanimously that, given the interest a democratic society had in ensuring the freedom of the press in the context of free elections, the sanctions in respect of Mr Długołęcki had been in violation of Article 10. The Court awarded Mr   Długołęcki EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Pieniak v. Poland (no. 19616/04) The applicant, Jerzy Pieniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Sieradz (Poland). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Pieniak alleged that he had been ill-treated by the police following his arrest in September 2001 on charges of rape. He further complained that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment had been inadequate. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 as the authorities had failed to provide a plausible explanation of how Mr Pieniak had been injured while in detention. The Court found a further violation of Article   3 on account of the numerous flaws and omissions in the investigation into Mr Pieniak’s allegations of ill-treatment. The Court awarded him EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Abramiuc v. Romania (no. 37411/02) The applicant, Ilie Abramiuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Negostina (Romania). In 1992 Mr Abramiuc, who had been a chemical engineer in a State-owned company until 1991, sued his former employer for using his invention between 1984 and 1991 in its industrial production without paying him royalties. In 1994, by a court decision, the State-owned company was ordered to compensate Mr Abramiuc.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained of the failure to enforce the final judgment of 1994, of the length of the two sets of proceedings disposed of in 2002 and of his inability to complain of that length under Romanian law. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the unjustified 11-year delay in enforcing the 1994 judgment, a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings disposed of by judgments of 2002 and a violation of Article   13 as the Government had not proved that the applicant had had an effective remedy by which to raise a complaint relating to the length of the proceedings. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   7,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) Tarău v. Romania (no. 3584/02) The applicant, Daniela Tarău, is a Romanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Bucharest (Romania). In 2001 she was placed in pre-trial detention in connection with criminal proceedings brought against her for fraud and conspiracy. Relying in particular on Article 5   §§   3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses), the applicant complained of the allegedly excessive length of her pre-trial detention and of the failure to secure the essential procedural guarantees when keeping her in detention and of the courts’ refusal to hear evidence from defence witnesses during the criminal proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 because the authorities had not justified the need to keep the applicant in detention on the basis of a “danger to public order” and of Article 5 § 4 because the authorities had failed to ensure the applicant’s adequate participation and effective defence in the proceedings on appeal against detention. It also held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   3   (d) on the ground that Ms Tarău had been unable to examine most of the prosecution witnesses or any defence witnesses during her trial. The Court held that the complaint under Article 13 taken together with Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and with Article 6   §   3   (d) did not give rise to any separate issue. It awarded the applicant EUR   4,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 8 Toma v. Romania (no. 42716/02) The applicant, Marius Ionel Toma, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Constanţa (Romania). On 9 September 2002 he was arrested for illegal possession of cannabis and placed in pre-trial detention.   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Toma complained of ill-treatment by the police during questioning, of the lack of an investigation by the authorities into those allegations,   of the fact that he had not been brought “promptly” before a judge after his arrest and of the time taken by the courts to rule on his complaint against the order of the prosecutor placing him in pre-trial detention. He also relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), alleging that the police had contacted journalists. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 given the co-existence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences supporting the applicant’s allegations of violence – for which the Government had provided no explanation – and of Article 5 § 3 and, by six votes to one, of Article 5 § 4 because the lawfulness of the detention order had not been examined in a “very short time”. It held, further, that there had been a violation of Article   8 on account of the interference – without any legitimate aim – constituted by the conduct of the police officers who had contacted journalists to record pictures of the applicant at the police headquarters. It awarded the applicant EUR   8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Çamçi and Others v. Turkey (no. 25172/02) The applicants, Mehmet Şerif Çamçi, Mehmet Can Tekin and Hasan Hayri Eroğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962, 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complained of the circumstances surrounding their police custody following their arrest during a demonstration and of the ineffectiveness of the investigations carried out in that regard. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 – the facts relating to the allegations of ill-treatment not having been sufficiently established – but a violation of Article 3 regarding the lack of an investigation. The Court awarded the applicants a total sum of EUR   8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (2 nd applicant) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Gülbahar and Tut v. Turkey (no. 24468/03) The applicants, Süleyman Gülbahar and Hüseyin Tut, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1972 respectively. They relied on Articles 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance) and Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) regarding the length of the criminal proceedings against them for terrorist acts perpetrated in the name of an illegal organisation and the length of their pre-trial detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and a violation of Article 5 § 3 in respect of Mr Hüseyin Tut, whose pre-trial detention had lasted nine years. It awarded the applicants a total sum of EUR   20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Nacaryan and Deryan v. Turkey (nos. 19558/02 and 27904/02) The applicants, Yeran-Janet Nacaryan and Armen Deryan, are Greek nationals who were born in 1945 and 1948 respectively and live in Greece. The case concerned the refusal of the Turkish courts to recognize their status as heirs to an estate including immovable property. In a judgment of 8 January 2008, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). When the Court delivered that judgment, it stated that the question of application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision. In its judgment delivered today the Court unanimously awarded each of the applicants EUR   250,000 for pecuniary damage. (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 Decev v. Moldova (no. 7365/05) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Melo e Faro Maldonado Passanha and Others v. Portugal (no. 44386/05) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning land expropriated in 1975 under the land reform.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Găină v. Romania (no. 16707/03) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) regarding the revocation of title to land the applicant had inherited from her brother.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Petrini v. Romania (no. 3320/05) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning apartments that had been nationalised and declared that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Laurenciu Popovici the Court declared that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Eösöly v. Hungary (no. 32069/05) Laurenciu Popovici v. Romania (no. 30043/04)     ***   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.