CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .sC6C0EBF2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 }   417 26.5.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Poland, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Rossitto v. Italy (application no. 7977/03) The applicant, Venera Rossitto, is an Italian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Avola (Italy). A plot of land she owned was included in a series of development plans and although the construction prohibitions later expired, it was not restored to its originally designated use nor was it expropriated by the administrative authorities. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mrs   Rossitto alleged that this situation amounted to a de facto expropriation. Taking into consideration the applicant’s uncertainty as to the future of her property, the lack of any remedy capable of rectifying the situation and the interference with her full enjoyment of her right of property, without any compensation being provided, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and found that it was unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 13. It awarded the applicant 130,000   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kordos v. Poland (no. 26397/02) The applicant, Romana Kordos, is a Polish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Śrem (Poland). Her husband died in 1995 after being hit by a car on a pedestrian crossing. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court) of the Convention, she complained about the excessive court fees required from her on appeal in the compensation proceedings against the driver and the insurance company. The Court noted that, although Ms Kordos had been awarded compensation by the first-instance court, as she had no property or valuable movables, that compensation money had apparently been her only asset. Consequently, the appeal court should have considered at least the possibility of partially exempting her from the court fees due in the proceedings, as it had not been reasonable to ask her to spend the money she had received as compensation for her husband’s death on court fees rather than on securing her basic living needs. The Court therefore held that the refusal to reduce the fee for lodging Ms Kordos’s appeal had breached her right of access to a court, in violation of Article   6   §   1. Ms   Kordos was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) (2 nd applicant) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (2 nd applicant) Violation of Article 8 Damian-Burueana and Damian v. Romania (no. 6773/02) The applicants, Marius Damian-Burueana and his brother, Viorel Damian, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1958 respectively and live in Bucharest and Turceni (Romania). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complained of ill ‑ treatment when arrested and while they were in police custody, of searches of their persons and homes and of the length of the compensation proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 3, as the authorities had provided no justification for the degree of force used during the applicants’ arrest, as a result of which they had sustained serious injuries, and on account of the lack of an effective investigation into their allegations. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, as the compensation proceedings instituted by Viorel Damian had lasted for more than eight years and eight months. It further held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8, since Mr Damian had not been afforded the minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness required by that Article. The Court awarded the applicants EUR   15,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   8,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Măciucă v. Romania (no. 25763/03) The applicant, Constantin Măciucă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Sărata (Romania). He was imprisoned in 1992 and is serving an 18-year sentence for murder. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained of his conditions of detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account in particular of overcrowding in the applicant’s cell, coupled with the length of time for which he had been detained in such conditions. It awarded him EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) SC ALEDANI SRL v. Romania (no. 28874/04) The applicant, (SRL) ALEDANI, is a Romanian limited company whose registered office is in Ploieşti (Romania). Following a dispute with another company concerning a building and a plot of land it complained, relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), of the annulment of the final judgment confirming its success in the action against the company concerned. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as the principle of legal certainty had been infringed, and awarded the applicant company EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Struck out Tănase and Others v. Romania (no. 62954/00) The applicants are 24 Romanian nationals of Roma origin who formerly lived in the village of Bolintin Deal, Giurgiu (Romania). In April 1991, following the murder of a non-Roma by a Roma in Bolintin Deal, a crowd of more than two thousand non-Roma inhabitants attacked the Roma population and burnt their houses, including those of the applicants. As a result, the entire Roma community fled and were left homeless for a month; they have apparently not yet returned to their village to live. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about their living conditions following the attack and destruction of their property as well as the length and unfairness of the ensuing proceedings to claim compensation. They relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy)   and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants also alleged that the violations they suffered as a result of the attack were due to their Roma ethnicity, in violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Government made a declaration recognising that the events had constituted violations of Articles 3, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They also undertook to pay monetary compensation to all applicants for the loss of their property, as well as to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the rights guaranteed in the above-mentioned Articles were respected in the future. The Court took note of the terms of the Government’s undertakings and decided to strike the case out of its list, in accordance with Article 37 (striking out). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Esat Bayram v. Turkey (no. 75535/01) The applicant, Esat Bayram, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerned Mr Bayram’s allegation that his 20-year-old brother, Halim Bayram, called up for compulsory military service, was shot and killed by his superior, despite the official conclusion that he had committed suicide. He also alleged that his brother had not received adequate medical care in ç anakkale Military Hospital and that the investigation into his death had been inadequate. He relied in particular on Article   2 (right to life). The Court found that Mr Bayram’s brother had been transferred to the Çanakkale Military Hospital immediately after the incident, where he had undergone an operation, and concluded that there had been no shortcomings on the part of the authorities in providing adequate medical treatment to him. The investigation, however, had revealed some serious inconsistencies and deficiencies, in violation of Article   2. The Court awarded Mr   Bayram EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 Naif Demirci v. Turkey (no. 17367/02) The applicant, Naif Demirci, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). In 2001 he was taken into police custody in the course of an investigation into an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). He complained, in particular, under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of his arrest without reasons being given and of the length of his detention in police custody. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5, as the applicant had been held in a situation amounting to police custody for nine days and had had no access to remedies or compensation. The Court considered it unnecessary to rule separately on the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3. Mr Demirci was awarded EUR   4,500 for non ‑ pecuniary damage. (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 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Cavalleri v. Italy (no. 30408/03) Colombi v. Italy (no. 24824/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mur v. Italy (no. 6480/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 13 Vicari v. Italy (no. 13606/04) The Court found the above violations in these four cases concerning the applicants’ complaints of infringements of their rights resulting from bankruptcy proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cârstea v. Romania (no. 28998/04) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mureşan v. Romania (no. 8015/05) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the annulment of a final judgment following an appeal by the principal public prosecutor.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (Mr Güler) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ekmekçi and Others v. Turkey (nos. 2841/05, 2873/05, 2875/05, 2878/05, 2895/05, 2947/05, 3577/05, 5498/05, 6192/05, 6793/05, 6306/05, 6356/05, 6375/05, 6377/05, 12950/05 and 12331/06) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the failure to provide the applicants with a copy of the opinion of State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court, and Mr   Güler’s complaint regarding the excessive length of the proceedings.     ***   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.