CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 mars 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   165 3.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   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 3 (treatment) Ghavtadze v. Georgia (application no. 23204/07) The applicant, Irakli Ghavtadze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1982 and is currently serving a prison sentence. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 in that the Georgian authorities had failed to comply with their obligation to protect his health during his detention and to provide him with appropriate treatment for his viral hepatitis C and tuberculous pleurisy; for example, the applicant had been admitted to hospital only when his symptoms had reached their peak. The Court awarded the applicant 17   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR   9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,639 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Eugenia and Doina Duca v. Moldova (no. 75/07) The applicants, Eugenia Duca, and her daughter, Doina Duca, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1953 and 1975 respectively and live in Chişinău. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the quashing of a judgment in their favour. The Court found that quashing this judgement six years after it had become final infringed the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court decided to reserve the question of application of Article 41 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Cibicki v. Poland (no. 20482/03) The applicant, Lesław Cibicki, is a Polish national who was born in Wrocław (Poland). He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial and right of access to a court), regarding the civil proceedings concerning his deceased parents’ estate. The Court found that ordering Mr. Cibicki to bear the costs of an expert opinion – which was a necessary piece of evidence – and the refusal to exempt him from court fees for pursuing his appeal had constituted a breach of his right of access to a court and to a fair trial. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded Mr   Cibicki EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Hilgartner v. Poland (no. 37976/06) The applicant, Sebastian Hilgartner, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Strzelce Opolskie (Poland). He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in January 2008. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length – four years and six months – of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, and awarded him EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction withArticle 6 § 1 (fairness) Aba v. Turkey (nos. 7638/02 and 24146/04) The applicant, Sakine Aba, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul. In this case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the applicant’s detention in police custody for five days, and a further violation of Article   5   §   5 concerning the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the breach of her rights under Article   5   §   3. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   3   (c) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1 on account of the lack of legal assistance to the applicant while in police detention. Ms   Aba was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 (less the EUR   850 received in legal aid from the Council of Europe) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ali Kemal Uğur and Others v. Turkey (no. 8782/02) The applicants are 21 Turkish nationals. They relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) concerning civil proceedings first brought in the 1950s with regard to a dispute over land situated in Kadirli, near Adana. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 in respect of Ali Kemal Uğur and Ömer Lüftı Uğur on account of the excessive length – 22 years – of the proceedings and awarded each applicant EUR   19,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction withArticle 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Taşçıgil v. Turkey (no. 16943/03) The applicant, Fırat Taşçıgil, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He relied on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) concerning proceedings brought against him for membership of Hizbullah as a result of which he was convicted and sentenced in May 2002 to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   3   (c) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1 on account of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant while he was in police custody, 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. Mr   Taşçıgil was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (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 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Milisavljević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 7435/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment/decision in the applicants’ favour.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Simões Alves Noronha v. Portugal (no. 35254/05) Vasconcelos do Couto and Others “Agrarian Reform” v. Portugal (nos. 30808/05, 31702/05, 32264/05, 34167/05, 34706/05, 34883/05, 35265/05, 35531/05, 36176/05, 37279/05, 39334/05, 39335/05, 39340/05, 40408/05, 41368/05, 42122/05, 42181/05, 42202/05, 42560/05, 44229/05, 44243/05, 44462/05, 44558/05 and 45602/05) The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deneş and Others v. Romania (no. 25862/03) Argunhan v. Turkey (no. 27045/02) In these two cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 about the excessive length of civil proceedings. He also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (2 nd set of proceedings) Violation of Article 13 (2 nd and 5 th set of proceedings) Rogelj v. Slovenia (no. 21415/02)     ***   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.