CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 mai 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 } .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 }   370 5.5.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Sellem v. Italy (application no. 12584/08) The applicant, Ezzedine Ben Edris Sellem, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Milan (Italy). Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that enforcement of the order for his deportation to Tunisia, where he had been sentenced in absentia to ten years’ imprisonment for being a member of a terrorist organisation, would, among other things, expose him to risks of torture. The Court noted that in its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Saadi v.   Italy (28   February 2008, no.   37201/06) it had found that many international sources referred to numerous and regular cases of torture and ill-treatment in Tunisia of persons suspected or found guilty of terrorism. In the present case the Court did not see any reason to reconsider those findings, which were, moreover, borne out by Amnesty International’s 2008 report on Tunisia. It therefore held unanimously that if the order for the applicant’s deportation to Tunisia were enforced, there would be a violation of Article   3. It also held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles   6 and   8. In addition, the Court considered that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and awarded him 6,623   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Struck out Gavrileanu v. Romania (no. 18037/02) The applicant, Ioan Gavrileanu, was a Romanian national who was born in 1935 and lived in Suceava (Romania). He died in October 2007. In a judgment of 22   February 2007 the Court found a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in relation to a plot of land that had belonged to the applicant, and considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. As the applicant’s heirs had not expressed their intention to pursue the proceedings before the Court following his death, it was decided that the case should be struck out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Gürsel Çelik v. Turkey (no. 5243/03) The applicant, Gürsel Çelik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966. At the time of his application he was serving a prison sentence for being a member of an illegal organisation, the   PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained, among other things, that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır National Security Court. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   3   (c) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1 in that the applicant had been unable to obtain the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. The Court 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.)   Violation of Article 10 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Özer v. Turkey (nos. 35721/04 and 3832/05) The applicant, Aziz Özer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. He is the proprietor and editor of the monthly publication Yeni Dünya İçin Çağrı (“Call for a new world”), whose registered office is in Istanbul. He also owns a publishing company, Çağrı Basın Yayın Ltd. Şti., likewise based in Istanbul. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complained about his convictions for publishing an article and printing a leaflet. The Court observed, in particular, that the article and leaflet in question amounted to political appeals and did not call for either violence or bloody revenge. It therefore considered that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 as regards the applicant’s complaint about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion, and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   3,600 for pecuniary damage, EUR   2,000 for 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 Labbruzzo v. Italy (no. 10022/02) In a judgment of 5 October 2006 the Court found a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in relation to a plot of land belonging to the applicants, and considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment it decided to strike the case out of the list following a friendly settlement under which the applicants are to receive EUR   15,000 in respect of all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Bindea v. Romania (no. 32297/04) The Court found the above violation on account of the quashing, following an application by the Procurator General, of a final judicial decision in the applicants’ favour concerning immovable property.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Forna v. Romania (no. 34999/03) The Court found the above violations in this case on account of the failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour concerning a plot of land. It further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it.   (Bekir Yavuz) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (All applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Yavuz and Others v. Turkey (no. 9923/05, 13021/05, 13186/05, 13809/05, 13810/05, 14622/05, 14650/05, 14662/05, 14698/05, 14704/05, 14707/05, 14837/05 and 26912/05) The Court found the above violations in this case, in particular on account of delays by the authorities in the payment of additional compensation awarded to the applicants for expropriation.     ***   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.