CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 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 } .sEA5CB6F2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#000080 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   331 21.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Marttinen v. Finland (application no. 19235/03) The applicant, Mikko Marttinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Helsinki. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Marttinen complained that he had been fined in debt recovery proceedings   for refusing to give an overall account of his assets and other financial means, although at the same time he had been suspected of debtor’s fraud. The Court found that the debt recovery procedure relied on by the Finnish Government could not justify a provision which extinguished the very essence of the applicant’s right to silence and not to incriminate himself. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the applicant 12,000   euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Jelitto v. Poland (no. 17602/07) The applicant, Dariusz Jelitto, is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Zielona Góra (Poland). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained of the excessive length of proceedings against him for fraud. The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because of the excessive length of the proceedings – about 12 years and 6 months – and awarded the applicant EUR 2,740 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Rusiecki v. Poland (no. 36246/97) The applicant, Edmund Rusiecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Poland. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand on charges of acting in an organised criminal gang and aggravated assault. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length – five years and 16 days – of his detention during the judicial proceedings. He submitted no claim for just satisfaction or for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Çığdem v. Turkey (no. 16963/07) Abdullah Yalçin v. Turkey (no. 2723/07) The applicants, Abdullah Yalçin and Sadun Çığdem, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1971 respectively and are currently detained in Diyarbakir prison (Turkey). Having been arrested and remanded in custody in the course of operations against the illegal armed organisation Hezbollah , they complained about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention, relying on Article 5   §   3 (right to liberty and security). In both cases the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 5   §   3, Mr Çığdem’s and Mr Yalçin’s detention having lasted nine years and one month and eight years and nine months respectively. Each applicant was awarded EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Miran v. Turkey (no. 43980/04) The applicant, Murat Miran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1987 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained of the unfairness of proceedings concerning his expulsion from the Mizika training school for NCOs following a disciplinary inquiry. The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 because of the failure to inform the applicant of the opinion of the Principal State Prosecutor of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Armed Forces, and the fact that he had been denied access to “classified” documents in the proceedings. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Soykan v. Turkey (no. 47368/99) The applicant, Tugay Soykan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Istanbul. He was arrested in 1996 and eventually sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment for assisting the illegal organisation “Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front” (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Cephesi Partisi – DHKP/C). Relying in particular on Article 6   §§   1 and 3 c (right to a fair trial), he complained of violations of his defence rights in the criminal proceedings against him. The Court unanimously found that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   3 c in conjunction with Article 6   §   1 as Mr Soykan had not had access to a lawyer while in police custody. It found that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints, under Articles 6 and 14, and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. The applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Topal v. Turkey (no. 3055/04) The applicant, Mücahit Topal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Ankara. Relying in particular on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained of the unfairness of proceedings concerning his expulsion from the Beytepe special gendarmerie school following a secret investigation carried out by the competent authorities. The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 6   §   1 because the applicant had been denied access to “classified” documents in the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court of the Armed Forces. It awarded him EUR 6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 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.   Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Velocci v. Italy (no. 1717/03) In a judgment delivered on 18 March 2008 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In today’s judgment the Court decided to strike the case out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the interested parties would receive EUR 30,000 in respect of all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Chibulcutean v. Romania (no. 19588/04) Niţescu v. Romania (no. 20763/03) In these two cases the Court found the above violations because of the authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour. In the Niţescu case the Court found violations of these Articles in respect of the obligation to reinstate the applicant and pay him arrears of salary from 15 June 2001 onwards, but no violations in respect of the payment of salaries prior to 15 June 2001, or of non-pecuniary damages.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kurt and Fırat v. Turkey (no. 26828/03) In this case the Court found the above violations concerning the authorities’ delay in paying an additional award of compensation for expropriation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mustafa Koçer v. Turkey (no. 9738/06) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that the authorities had deprived him of his property without payment of compensation.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Tamási and Others , the Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the merits of the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Tamási and Others v. Hungary (no. 25848/06) Gerstbrein v. Slovakia (no. 17252/04) Coşkun v. Turkey (no. 620/03)   (Nine applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Serafin and Others v. Poland (no. 36980/04)     ***   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.