CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s506392FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:252pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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   311 14.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia 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 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   Manninen v. Finland (application no. 28631/05) The applicant, Rainer Kaarlo Tapio Manninen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Helsinki. Suspected of aggravated debtor’s dishonesty and false accounting concerning a company he owned, Mr Manninen was questioned by the police in April 1997. He was ultimately convicted as charged in February 2005 and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the excessive length – almost eight years – of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles   6   §   1 and 13. The Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (No. 4) (no. 41870/05) Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (No. 5) (no. 30381/06) The applicant, Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1953 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complained that the civil proceedings in which he had been a party had not complied with the requirements of a fair trial. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure, in both cases, to provide the applicant with a copy of a note from the judge and because the Court of Appeal failed to reply to a relevant ground of appeal submitted by the applicant in the first case (no. 4). It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him, for each case, EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Dan Cristian Ionescu v. Romania (no. 17782/02) The applicant, Dan Cristian Ionescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained of the length of proceedings he brought concerning the illegal demolition by the Romanian authorities in 1987 of a property he owned and the impossibility of obtaining payment of the building’s market value. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings – six years and nine months at three levels of jurisdiction – and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the applicant had had no effective means of obtaining the compensation he claimed. It awarded him EUR 125,000 for all heads of damage taken together. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (fairness)   Didu v. Romania (no. 34814/02) The applicant, Ion Didu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Craiova (Romania). Relying on Article   6   §§   1   and   2 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and respect for the presumption of innocence), Mr Didu complained that the length of criminal proceedings against him for forgery, uttering a forgery and assault had been excessive and that the presumption of his innocence had been infringed. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings – six years and five months – and the doubt cast on Mr Didu’s innocence – who had been acquitted at first instance – because the decision at the appeal stage that prosecution was time-barred did not expunge the criminal qualification of the facts. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 and Article 8   Felbab v. Serbia (no. 14011/07) The applicant, Nedeljko Felbab, is a Serbian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Zrenjanin (Serbia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the non-enforcement of a final access order by the Municipal Court concerning the dissolution of his marriage and the custody of his children, and that he had had no effective domestic remedy to expedite the enforcement proceedings. The Court found in particular that the Serbian authorities had not taken sufficient steps to execute the final access order, and, that the applicant’s as well as his children’s legitimate and long-term interest in developing and sustaining a bond had not been duly considered. Consequently, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 8. It also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   6   §   1 and Article 8. Mr Felbab was awarded EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Ditaban v. Turkey (no. 69006/01) The applicant, Savaş Ditaban, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He was arrested in April 2000 and found guilty in 2001 of offences committed as a member of an armed gang. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he complained that he had not been assisted by a lawyer while he was in police custody and that as a result he had made a confession on which his conviction had been based. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken together with Article 6 § 1 on account of the infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that he had been deprived of the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody and awarded him EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The Court declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded a complaint under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation)   Mecail Özel v. Turkey (no. 16816/03) The applicant, Mecail Özel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). In February 2000, when caught up in a demonstration, he was arrested and taken into custody by police officers ordered to disperse the demonstrators. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had been assaulted after his arrest and while he was in police custody and that there had been no investigation into his allegations. The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 3, in that the Turkish Government had not provided any plausible explanation of bruising on Mr Özel’s person and that an effective criminal investigation into the altercation complained of had been prevented by the provincial governor. It awarded the applicant EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses (less EUR 850 paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid). (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 1 of Protocol No. 1 S.C. Ghepardul S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 29268/03) The Court found the above violation in this case on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour concerning claims relating to tax liabilities.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Karakuş v. Turkey (no. 19467/07) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that the authorities had deprived him of his property without paying compensation.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Paliga and Adamkowicz v. Poland (no. 23856/05) Tomaszewska v. Poland (no. 9399/03) Rusňáková v. Slovakia (no. 51071/06)     ***   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.