CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .sC3726361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000080 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   246 24.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Albania, Finland, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 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 3 (treatment) Abdelhedi v. Italy (application no. 2638/07) Ben Salah v. Italy (no. 38128/06) Bouyahia v. Italy (no. 46792/06) C.B.Z. v. Italy (no. 44006/06) Darraji v. Italy (no. 11549/05) Hamraoui v. Italy (no. 16201/07) O. v. Italy (no. 37257/06) Soltana v. Italy (no. 37336/06) The applicants are Tunisian nationals living in Italy: Mohamed Abdelhedi, Ben Salah, Maher Ben Abdelaziz Bouyahia, C.B.Z., Kamel Darraji, Kamel Ben Boundi Hamraoui, O. and Mohamed Ben Salah Soltana, who were born in 1965, 1967, 1970, 1976, 1965, 1977, 1960 and 1973 respectively. In the eight cases the applicants alleged, in particular, under Article   3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) that enforcement of the decisions ordering their deportation to Tunisia would place them at risk of torture. In addition, the applicants in Ben Salah , Darraji and Hamraoui relied on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, and the applicants in C.B.Z. , O. and Soltana on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). In the cases of Bouyahia and Darraji , the applicants also relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that in its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Saadi v. Italy (28 February 2008, application no 37201/06), it had concluded that many international sources referred to numerous and regular instances of torture and ill-treatment inflicted in Tunisia on persons suspected or found guilty of terrorism, and that visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross to Tunisian prisons could not exclude the risk of subjection to treatment contrary to Article 3. In these eight cases it did not see any reason to review those conclusions, which had moreover been confirmed by Amnesty International’s report on Tunisia for 2008. Furthermore, the Court was unable to accept the Italian Government’s submission that the diplomatic assurances given by the Tunisian authorities offered effective protection against the serious risk of ill-treatment run by the applicants. Accordingly, the Court concluded – unanimously – that, in the event that the decisions to deport the applicants to Tunisia were enforced, there would be a violation of Article   3. It also held that there was no need to examine the applicants’ complaints under Articles   2, 8   and   6.   The applicant in Abdelhedi did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. In the other cases the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. It also awarded 5,000   euros   (EUR) to Mr   Bouyahia, EUR   4,150 to Mr   C.B.Z. and EUR   5   ,000 to Mr Hamraoui for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Poppe v. the Netherlands (no. 32271/04) The applicant, Bart Poppe, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1966 and lives in Amsterdam. In April 2000 Mr Poppe was arrested on suspicion of various drug-related offences; he was ultimately convicted of facilitating drug trafficking and participating in a criminal organisation and sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to an impartial tribunal), Mr Poppe complained that two of the judges of the first instance court that tried him had taken part in the trial of a number of his co-accused and had, in the judgments convicting them, found him to be connected with the criminal offences at issue.   The Court found that fears which Mr Poppe could have experienced as regards bias on the part of the domestic court had not been objectively justified. In   its view, the fact that that a judge has already ruled on similar but unrelated criminal charges or that he or she has already tried a co-accused in separate criminal proceedings   was not, in itself, sufficient to cast doubt on that judge's impartiality in a subsequent case. It   was, however, a different matter if the earlier judgments contained findings that actually prejudged the question of the guilt of an accused in such subsequent proceedings.   As it was, in the judgments complained about the names of the applicant and others   were mentioned in passing, merely to illustrate and clarify the leading role played in the criminal organisation by the   applicant's co-accused. Whether the applicant's involvement with   them fulfilled all the relevant criteria necessary to constitute a criminal offence and, if so, whether the applicant was guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of having committed such an offence   had not been addressed, determined or assessed by the trial judges   in question. There   had been   no specific qualification of the involvement of the applicant or of acts committed by him, criminal or otherwise.   The Court therefore held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Niţescu v. Romania (no. 26004/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Constantin Niţescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Piteşti (Romania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained of the failure to enforce a final judicial decision given in his favour in 2002 ordering the setting-aside of two administrative permits authorising the reconversion for commercial use of part of the building in which he was living.   The Court held, in particular, that by failing for six years to set aside the permits in question the authorities had deprived the applicant’s right of access to a court of all useful effect. Accordingly, it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and also found that there was no need to examine the complaints lodged under Article   8 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. It awarded Mr Niţescu EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   545 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tudor Tudor v. Romania (no. 21911/03) The applicant, Tudor Tudor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerned Mr Tudor’s complaint about the unfairness of proceedings against him for recovery of possession of an apartment he had bought from the State. He alleged in particular that the same domestic court had adopted conflicting decisions in identical cases brought against other buyers of apartments situated in the same building as his. The eviction proceedings lodged by the former owner of the applicant’s apartment were still pending before the domestic courts. Mr Tudor relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court noted that, seven years after the adoption of the relevant domestic law, its interpretation by the Romanian courts was still subject to change and created continual uncertainty for Mr Tudor. The applicant had therefore been deprived of a fair trial, in violation of Article   6   §   1. The Court further held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   14 together with Article   6, and rejected Mr Tudor’s complaint that he had been deprived of his property as it found that the domestic legal system provided sufficient remedies to which he should have resorted before applying to the European Court. Mr   Tudor was awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Berková v. Slovakia (no. 67149/01) The applicant, Jarmila Berková, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Poprad (Slovakia). The case concerned Ms Berková’s complaint that, suffering from a mental disorder which had resulted in a guardian being appointed for her, in 1999 the domestic courts refused to restore her full legal capacity and decided that she was not allowed to make any further such request for the next three years. She also complained in particular about the excessive length of proceedings concerning her divorce, division of matrimonial property and maintenance. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article 13 in respect of the excessive duration of the three sets of proceedings at issue. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   8 because Ms Berková had been prevented for too long from applying to have her legal capacity restored. (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 Vrioni and Others v. Albania (no. 2141/03) The Court found the above violations in this case on account of the quashing of the Supreme Court’s final judgment concerning restitution of property and given in the applicants’ favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Marinescu and Mangu v. Romania (no. 26094/03) The Court found the above violations as the Romanian authorities had failed to enforce a final judgment in favour of the applicants in good time.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Hasırcı v. Turkey (no. 38012/03) The Court found the above violation on account of the failure to send the applicant the submissions of State Counsel at the State Administrative Court beforehand.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mehmet Emin Şahin v. Turkey (no. 6124/02) The Court found the above violation on account of the delay in paying the compensation awarded to the applicant by a court decision.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the Court found that the domestic (non-criminal) proceedings had lasted for too long, in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). In the case of Pátková , the Court also found a violation of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) because Ms Pátková had had no possibility in domestic law to seek either compensation or other redress for the excessively long proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Vienonen and Others v. Finland (no. 36989/05) Czifra v. Hungary (no. 13290/05) Katona v. Hungary (no. 20075/05) Dorota and Zbigniew Nowak v. Poland (no. 17904/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Pátková v. Hungary (no. 41453/05)     ***   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.