CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 }   352 28.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   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 (fairness) Rózsa v. Hungary (application no. 30789/05) The applicants, Ferenc Rózsa and István Rózsa, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1949 respectively and live in Budapest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained that they had been unable to seek compensation in court for the loss of value of their shares in a company whose liquidation had been ordered unlawfully. The European Court of Human Rights considered that no fair balance had been struck between the general interest in securing the payment of the creditors and the applicant’s personal interest in having access to a court and held unanimously that here had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. The Court awarded each applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. For costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts, EUR   16,538 was awarded to Ferenc Rózsa and EUR   14,231 to István Rózsa. The applicants were awarded EUR   1,000, jointly, for costs and expenses incurred before the Court. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bijelić v. Montenegro and Serbia (no. 11890/05) The applicants, Nadezda Bijelić, Svetlana Bijelić and Ljiljana Bijelić, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1950, 1973 and 1971 respectively and live in Belgrade. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to home), they complained in particular about the non-enforcement of an eviction order concerning a flat in Montenegro and their consequent inability to live in the flat at issue. The Court held unanimously   that the application was inadmissible in respect of Serbia. It further held unanimously that for the second and third applicants there had been a violation   by Montenegro of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, and that it was not necessary to examine separately their complaint under Article   6   §   1.   Finally, by six votes to one the Court held that the Government of Montenegro should ensure the enforcement of the final domestic judgment in their favour (ordering the eviction) and awarded them, jointly, EUR   4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Godysz v. Poland (no. 46949/07) The applicant, Władysław Godysz, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Siemanowice (Poland). In April 2005 he was remanded in custody on suspicion of bribery, evasion of tax and customs duties and forgery committed in an organised criminal gang; he was released on bail in April 2008. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained that he had been detained for too long pending his trial. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length – three years and two days – of the applicant’s detention on remand, and awarded him EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (fairness) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Rasmussen v. Poland (no. 38886/05) The applicant, Alicja Rasmussen, a retired judge, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) alone and in combination with Article   6   §   3 she alleged that the proceedings concerning her declaration under a lustration law of 1997 had been unfair. She further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   about having been deprived,   as a result of the judgments in the lustration proceedings,   of   a social insurance entitlement guaranteed to retired judges. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in   combination   with Article   6   §   3 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It held that it was not necessary to examine the remainder of   Ms Rasmussen’s   complaint concerning the fairness of the proceedings. It further found that the loss of her entitlement to the special retirement pension as a result of the submission of a false lustration declaration had not amounted to an interference with her possessions. The applicant had made a false declaration that she had not been a collaborator of the communist secret police and, consequently, the courts had found that she had not satisfied the conditions which the domestic law attached to the acquisition of that pension. It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 Ersoy and Aslan v. Turkey (no. 16087/03) The applicants, Hasim Özgür Ersoy and Korkmaz Aslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1978 and 1979 and live in Istanbul and Edirne respectively. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture), they alleged that they had suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces dispersing a demonstration in which they had been taking part, and subsequently in the van in which they had been taken to the police station. After having taken evidence from the police officers, the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office had discontinued the proceedings in a judgment subsequently upheld by the Assize Court. The Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article   3, as there was insufficient evidence to establish “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicants’ injuries had resulted from the actions of State agents performing their duties. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Gülecan v. Turkey (no. 23904/03) The applicant, Mahmut Gülecan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1989. In 2002 he was sentenced to imprisonment for being a member of an illegal organisation. He alleged that he had been convicted on the strength of a statement obtained from him in police custody, in the absence of his lawyer. He also submitted that the Court of Cassation had upheld the judgment against him without having sent him a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at that court. He relied in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §§   1 and   3   (c) in that the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion had not been communicated to the applicant and he had been deprived of legal assistance while in police custody. It awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Kelekçier v. Turkey (no. 5387/02) The applicant, Sidik Kelekçier, is a Turkish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Diyarbakır. He alleged that had been ill-treated by the security forces who had come to his home to arrest his brother, wanted on suspicion of fraud. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture), the applicant alleged that he had been beaten on the way to, and subsequently at, the police station where he had been taken for questioning.   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the Government’s failure to provide a plausible explanation of the injuries observed on the applicant’s body, and unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaint . The Court awarded the applicant EUR   8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kuyu v. Turkey (no. 1180/04) The applicant, Yadigar Kuyu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and was being held in Ermenek prison (Karaman) when the application was lodged. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained that the proceedings following his arrest had lasted far too long. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings (eight years and one month) and awarded the applicant EUR   4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 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.   (Four applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Arıcı and Others v. Turkey (no. 35528/03) In this case the Court found the above violation on account of the failure to enforce a final judicial decision awarding the applicants statutory severance pay.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fatihoğlu and Ugutmen v. Turkey (no. 43498/04) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicants’ complaint that the authorities had deprived them of their property rights without compensation.   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Blackgrove v. the United Kingdom (no. 2895/07) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that, as a widower, he had been refused Widowed Mother’s Allowance.     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) Klimkiewicz v. Poland (no. 44537/05)   Revision Trojańczyk v. Poland (no. 11219/02) Following the death of the applicant, the Government asked for the Court’s judgment of 9   January 2007 to be revised. The Court decided unanimously to revise the judgment and awarded the heirs of Ms   Trojańczyk, jointly, the amount originally awarded to her.     ***   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.