CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 avril 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; 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   295 7.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Revision Fonyódi v. Hungary (application no. 30799/04) The applicant, Gyuláné Fonyódi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest. On 7 October 2008 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning her complaint about the excessive length of civil proceedings she had brought against a hospital for compensation following complications from plastic surgery. She requested revision of that judgment arguing that an invoice concerning legal fees should have been taken into account in her claim for costs. The Court decided unanimously to revise the judgment and awarded the applicant a further 1,000   euros   (EUR). (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 8 Cherif and Others v. Italy (no. 1860/07) The applicants are two Tunisian nationals, Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif and his brother Kais Cherif, and an Italian national, Sonia Brusadelli (the wife of Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif). Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif was born in 1970 and is currently living in Tunisia; Sonia Brusadelli was born in 1964 and lives in Dazio (Italy). The applicants complained in particular of the expulsion to Tunisia in 2007 of Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif, whom the Italian authorities suspected of terrorist activities. The Court considered that Mr Cherif no longer intended to pursue his application, noting inter alia that since his expulsion he had not given the lawyer representing the other applicants authority to act on his behalf. Consequently, it decided unanimously to strike out of its list that part of the application which had been lodged by Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif. The Court declared admissible the complaint of the other applicants under Article 8, and the remainder of the application inadmissible. It held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 8, in particular on account of the potential danger to national security posed by Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 13 Breabin v. Moldova (no. 12544/08) The applicant, Dumitru Breabin, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. In 2004 he was summonsed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs on suspicion of forgery. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained   that he was   ill-treated by the   police. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   3 on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment by police officers and in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into his complaints of ill-treatment. The Court found a further violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of effective remedies in respect of the ill-treatment complained of. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   200 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (1 st applicant) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) (1 st applicant) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (1 st applicant) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova (no. 4834/06) The applicants are three Moldovan nationals, Gheorghe Straisteanu, a well-known businessman and former Member of Parliament, Natalia Straisteanu and Daniela Straisteanu, who were born in 1954, 1957 and 1986 respectively. They are members of the same family and live in Chişinău. The fourth applicant is SRL Codrana-Lux, a limited liability company incorporated in Moldova, the majority of which is owned by the applicant family. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that they were the victims of government harassment and intimidation. All the applicants complained that the Government tried to pressure them into giving up property they owned and that proceedings in which the authorities sought to annul the contracts of lease and sale of that property were unfair. Gheorghe Straisteanu also alleged that the harassment had included him being arrested in 2005 and 2006 and charged with car theft and uttering death threats. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 and a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   3 in respect of the conditions of detention in which Gheorghe Straisteanu had been held. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§   1 and 3 as regards the unlawfulness of his detention between 18   August and 17   November 2005 and 22   July and 18   August 2005. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 in respect of all four applicants as a result of the upholding of the Prosecutor General’s actions for the annulment of the contracts of sale and lease of land. It held that there was no need to examine the applicants’ other complaints under Articles   6, 13 and   14. Gheorghe Straisteanu was awarded EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. The Court held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from the breaches of Article   6 and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (No. 4) (no. 18491/07) The applicants are: Hyde Park, a non-governmental organisation registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice at the time of the events, since replaced by Hyde Park unincorporated association; and, eight Moldovan nationals, Oleg Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Roman Cotelea, Mariana Galescu, Radu Vasilascu, Vitalie Dragan, Angela Lungu and Anatol Hristea-Stan. In August 2006 the applicants took part in a demonstration; the protest was broken up by the police and the applicants were detained and taken to Buiucani Police Station where they were charged with unlawful assembly and resisting arrest. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained in particular about the authorities’ refusal to authorise their demonstration to protest about Chişinău town hall’s refusal to erect a monument donated by Romania, the unlawfulness of their arrest, the conditions of their detention at the police station and the unfairness of the ensuing proceedings they brought against the police officers who had arrested them. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 and Article 5 § 1 and that there was no need to examine separately the complaints under Article 6 and Article 5 §§ 2 and 3. The Court awarded Hype Park EUR   4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for cost and expenses, and various amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage, all of which appear in the table appended to the judgment. (The judgment is available only in English)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Stoişor and Others v. Romania (no. 16900/03) The applicants, Ilie Marcel Stoişor, Maria Işa, Cornelia Stoişor and Carmen Mihaiela Oană, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1945, 1921, 1922 and 1955 respectively and live in Romania. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complained of the setting aside of a final judgment in their favour concerning a building they owned. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicants EUR   480,000 jointly for pecuniary damage, EUR   6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 5 § 3 Tiron v. Romania (no. 17689/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Tiron, is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained in particular of his pre-trial detention, from March 2003 to December 2004, on suspicion of tax evasion and falsification of official documents. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   3 on account of the Romanian authorities’ failure to bring the applicant promptly before an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. In addition, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the authorities’ failure to give “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the need to keep Mr   Tiron in pre-trial detention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mendel v. Sweden (no. 28426/06) The applicant, Sonja Mendel, is a Swedish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Malmö. From 2001 the applicant took part in a programme organised by the State for the long-term unemployed. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Mendel complained that she had not been able to make an appeal against a decision which had withdrawn permission for her to participate in the programme. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   13. The applicant was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (Nine applicants) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 11 Karatepe and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33112/04, 36110/04, 40190/04, 41469/04 and 41471/04) The applicants are 17 Turkish nationals living in Turkey. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), they complained of their arrest by the police in Taksim (Istanbul) in August 2003 during a demonstration organised by an association named Halkevleri (“the houses of the people”) to protest in particular against the decision to send Turkish troops into Iraq. The Court noted that the Turkish Government had not established the exact circumstances of the applicants’ arrest or the proportionality of the force used by the police. Accordingly, it considered that the violence committed by the security forces had been disproportionate, noting in particular that medical certificates concerning some of the applicants mentioned injuries which made them temporarily unfit for work. Consequently, it held that there had been violations of Article   3 in respect of nine of the applicants and awarded them EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It further held that there had been violations of Article 11, considering that the heavy-handed intervention by the police and the opening of a criminal investigation against the applicants had been disproportionate. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Nafiye Çetin and Others v. Turkey (no. 19180/03) The applicants, Nafiye Çetin, Necat Çetin, Nezir Çetin, Adnan Çetin, Nuriye Kaymış and Leman Ekingen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1929, 1972, 1956, 1966, 1963 and 1953 respectively and live in Mersin, Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa in Turkey. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) they complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the death of their 20-year-old son and brother, Harun Çetin, following his detention in police custody in March 1993. The Court considered that their complaint should be examined under the procedural aspect of Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and held unanimously that there had been a violation of these articles   on account of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. The Court awarded EUR   10,000 to Nafiye Çetin and EUR   5,000 to each of the other applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Turnalı v. Turkey (no. 4914/03) The applicant, Yıldız Turnalı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). She asserts that she was born from an extra-marital relationship between her mother and Hasan Yavaş. Mr Yavaş died in 2000 without legally recognising Mrs Turnalı as his child. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of the Turkish courts’ rejection of her action to establish that Mr Yavaş was her father and to be recognised as his heir. The Court noted in particular that Article 296 of the Civil Code required paternity actions to be brought “within one year of the child’s birth”. It considered that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the fact that Mrs Turnalı had been unable to plead the existence of circumstances capable of justifying her delay in bringing the paternity action was incompatible with the requirements of Article 8. It accordingly held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 8 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It further held, by five votes to two, 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 French.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ladoméry v. Slovakia (no. 39783/05)     ***   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.