CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 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   194 10.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 28   Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment 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.     Friendly settlement Thilgen v. Luxembourg (application no. 2196/05) The applicant, Aloyse Thilgen, is a Luxembourg national who was born in 1960 and lives in Lamadelaine (Luxembourg). Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that the investigation into the death of his sister in hospital in 1996 had not been effective, that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and that he had been denied access to a court, as a complaint he had filed against a decision of discontinuance was declared inadmissible and his appeal on points of law had been dismissed. The Court decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list following a friendly settlement. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Struck out Ibrahim Mohamed v. the Netherlands (no. 1872/04) Said Botan v. the Netherlands (no. 1869/04) The applicants, Abdullahi Ibrahim Mohamed and Sahra Said Botan, are Somali nationals who were born in 1970 and 1969 respectively and live in Nijmegen (the Netherlands). Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, they complained that the domestic authorities had refused to grant them residence permits in order to live with their families in the Netherlands. Pending the proceedings before the Court, the applicants in both cases had been granted a temporary residence permit for the purpose of asylum in view of the general situation in Somalia. The Court held in particular that even though that permit had not been issued for the specific purpose of allowing the applicants to enjoy family life in the Netherlands, it nevertheless enabled them to do so. Accordingly, the Court considered that the matters giving rise to the applicants’ complaints could be considered to be “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 ( b) of the Convention, and held unanimously that the applications should be struck out of its list of cases. (The judgments are available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 2 Kaźmierczak v. Poland (no. 4317/04) The applicant, Andrzej Kaźmierczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Wrocław (Poland). Relying on Articles   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and 6   §   2 (presumption of innocence), he complained in particular about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud, and that his right to the presumption of innocence had been breached. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5   §   3 and that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   2. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (1 st applicant) No violation of Article 3 (treatment) (1 st applicant) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey (nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03) The applicants, Rıfat Böke and Halil Kandemir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1979 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). Relying on Articles   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and 6   §   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), both applicants complained that they had been detained for seven days, on suspicion of having shot and injured two people in a bus in 2001, without being brought before a judge capable of authorising their detention, and that they had been denied access to a lawyer while in police custody. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Rıfat Böke also alleged that he had been tortured while in police custody. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 and a violation of Article   6   §   3   (c). It further held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   3 concerning Rıfat Böke’s allegations of ill-treatment, but that there had been a violation of that Article on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to effectively investigate those allegations. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded 6,500   euros   (EUR) to Rıfat Böke and EUR   1,500 to Halil Kandemir. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo-Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (No. 3) (no.   10129/04) The applicant is a limited company, Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo-Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş., which used to broadcast on radio and television in Istanbul. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), it complained about the total suspension of its radio programmes for 30 days, imposed by the radio-broadcasting regulatory authority. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10 and awarded the applicant company EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,500 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 8 Violation of Article 13 Cifra v. Italy (no. 26735/05) D’Apolito v. Italy (no. 33226/05) Fabiano v. Italy (no. 40807/05) Furno v. Italy (no. 40824/05) Massimo v. Italy (no. 11000/05) Moroni v. Italy (no. 40261/05) Puzella and Others v. Italy (no. 38264/05) Umberto Pedicini and Pierpaolo Pedicini v. Italy (no. 8681/05) Valentini v. Italy (no. 40664/05) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Shaw v. Italy (no. 981/04) The Court found the above violations in these ten cases concerning the applicants’ complaints of infringements of their rights resulting from bankruptcy proceedings.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ichim v. Romania (no. 9164/02) Stanciu v. Romania (no. 3530/03) The Court found the above violation in these cases concerning the applicants’ complaints of infringements of their property rights.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ahmet Doğan v. Turkey (no. 37033/03) The Court found the above violation in this case in which the applicant complained that he had been tried as a civilian by a military court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Erbey v. Turkey (no. 29188/02) Nural Vural v. Turkey (no. 16009/04) Rimer and Others v. Turkey (no. 18257/04) Şatir v. Turkey (no 36192/03) Temel Conta Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 45651/04) The Court found the above violation in these five cases concerning the applicants’ complaint that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation. The Court held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sait Işık v. Turkey (no. 19255/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint about delays in payment of additional compensation for expropriation of land.     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) Wolnicka v. Poland (no. 18414/03) Güngil v. Turkey (no. 28388/03)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Martin v. Romania (no. 14466/02)     ***   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.