CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC6C0EBF2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 }   503 23.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Kaura v. Finland (application no. 40350/05) The applicant, Seppo Vihtori Kaura, is a Finnish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Louko (Finland). He has been unemployed since November 1999. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of the excessive length and unfairness of proceedings he brought concerning the authorities’ refusal to pay him unemployment benefit from September to November 2000 because he had not promptly responded to a possible employer. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention: one on account of the excessive length – four years and seven months – of the proceedings and, another one, in respect the lack of an oral hearing. The Court awarded Mr   Kaura 4,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,915.40 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (torture and investigation) Buzilov v. Moldova (no. 28653/05) The applicant, Petru Buzilov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1961 and lives in Cahul (Moldova). In May 2002 he was arrested on suspicion of racketeering. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that police officers ill-treated him, including by having cold water poured over him while being given electric shocks, and that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the incident. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   3 concerning the torture of the applicant in police custody and the failure of the State to effectively investigate his complaints, and awarded Mr   Buzilov EUR   30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Figas v. Poland (no. 7883/07) The applicant, Bartłomiej Figas, is a Polish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Wojkowice (Poland). In 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and uttering threats and was remanded in custody. The last decision to extend his pre-trial detention was on 8   January 2007. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained of having been detained excessively long. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length – approximately two years and eight months – of his pre-trial detention, and awarded him EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Wroński v. Poland (no. 473/07) The applicant, Mirosław Wroński, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Gdynia (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – 13   years and seven months – of the proceedings for two levels of jurisdiction, and awarded Mr   Wroński EUR   10,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Vişan v. Romania (no. 5181/04) The applicant, Nicolae Vişan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Focşani (Romania). He is a retired serviceman. In 2001 he brought an action in the Romanian courts against the Ministry of Defence for reimbursement of tax levied on an end-of-service allowance. Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complained about the quashing of a final judgment in his favour in the context of those proceedings following an application to that effect by the Procurator-General. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and ruled that the Romanian State was to pay Mr   Vişan the sum of 8,828 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR   2,090) for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 3 Stojnšek v. Slovenia (no. 1926/03) The applicant, Franc Stojnšek, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Rogatec (Slovenia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Stojnšek complained that, following a court summons, he was ill-treated by the police on being arrested and taken to prison to serve a three-month sentence for “threatening security”, and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate his allegations. The Court, having declared the complaints concerning Article   3 admissible, held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   3, as it found that the force used by the police had not been excessive but rather necessary to overcome the applicant’s resistance, and the investigation into his allegation had been compatible with Article   3. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (All the applicants) Violation of Article 5 § 3 (Four applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Atsız and Others v. Turkey (no. 7987/07) The applicants, Sedat Atsız, Mehmet   Emin Türk, Şerefettin Türk, Mahfuz Siğinç and Orhan Sakci, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1970, 1966, 1974 and 1970 respectively, and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They were taken into custody in 1994 on suspicion of membership of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained of the excessive length of their detention during the judicial proceedings against them. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 as regards all the applicants on account of the excessive length – approximately 12   years and five months – of their pre-trial detention. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – 15   years and two months – of the proceedings that were still pending before the Court of Cassation as regards Sedat Atsız, Mehmet   Emin Türk, Şerefettin Türk and Mahfuz Siğinç. The Court declared inadmissible the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings regarding Orhan Sakci. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, each of the first four applicants was awarded EUR   17,250, and Orhan Sakci was awarded EUR   10,500. For costs and expenses, all applicants were awarded EUR   170, jointly. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bilget v. Turkey (no. 23327/05) The applicant, Kemal Bilget, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Istanbul. He was convicted in 2004 of membership of an illegal organisation, following proceedings that had begun in 1993. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained in particular of the length of the proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings – approximately 11   years – and awarded Mr   Bilget EUR   7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Keser and Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 5981/03) The applicants are Cemal Keser and Müdet Kömürcü, Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1972 respectively. They were convicted of membership of terrorist organisations and at the time of lodging their application were being held in Kocaeli F-type Prison (Turkey). On 18   September 2006 the Court was informed of the death of Cemal Keser and of the decision of his widow, Mrs   Hatun Keser, to pursue the application. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained that they had been subjected to ill-treatment during and after their transfer to the high-security prison and that the investigations into their complaints had been ineffective. In the light of their consistent statements and all the material before it the Court considered it established that the applicants had been subjected to a series of acts of violence while in Kocaeli F ‑ type Prison, for which the Turkish State was to be held responsible. It therefore held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicants. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the ineffective nature of the investigation into Mr   Keser’s allegations of rape, crushing of his testicles and falaka , and the allegations of assault made by both applicants against warders in Kocaeli Prison. The Court awarded EUR   6,000 to Mr   Kömürcü and EUR   12,000 to Mrs   Keser for non-pecuniary damage and a further EUR   5,000 to the latter for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Öngün v. Turkey (no. 15737/02) The applicant, Ahmet Öngün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). In 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of arson committed in protest against the arrest of the former leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr   Öngün alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which had tried him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the Mr   Öngün’s conviction on the basis of statements which had been obtained during the pre-trial stage in the absence of a lawyer. He was awarded EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Oral and Atabay v. Turkey (no. 39686/02) The applicants, İsa Oral and Ahmet Atabay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1967 respectively and live in Şırnak (Turkey). They were arrested and taken into police custody in March 2002 on suspicion of being members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. Relying on Article   5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that their detention in police custody had been excessively lengthy and unlawful and that there had been no remedy available for seeking compensation. The Court took the view that the length of time spent by the applicants in police custody – four days and two hours in the case of Ahmet Atabay and four days and four hours in the case of İsa Oral – had not satisfied the “promptness” requirement, and held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3. It further found that the applicants had not been able effectively to challenge the lawfulness of their police custody, in breach of Article   5   §   4. The Court also found a violation of Article   5   §   5, as it was not satisfied that Turkish law afforded Mr   Oral and Mr   Atabay a right to compensation for the alleged violations. It awarded the applicants EUR   500 each for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Veli Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 43824/07) The applicant, Veli Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978. In January 2003 he was taken into police custody, and subsequently into pre-trial detention, on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation. He is currently being held in Tekirdağ Prison (Turkey). Relying on Article   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained that his detention had been excessively lengthy and unlawful, and that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. Noting in particular that the applicant had been in pre-trial detention since January 2003, a period already amounting to more than six years and four months, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles   5   §   3 and 6   §   1. It also found a violation of Article   5   §   4 and awarded Mr   Özdemir EUR   8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   750 in respect of all costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Friendly settlement Hunt and Miller v. United Kingdom (nos. 10578/05 and 10605/05) The applicants are two British nationals: Carl Andrew David Hunt, who was born in 1966 and lives in Poole; and Allan Miller, who was born in 1960 and lives in Glasgow. Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained that, while they were serving in the armed forces, investigations were carried out into their sexual orientation. Both applicants claimed that they subsequently resigned because life in the armed forces had become unbearable. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 29,000   pounds sterling (GBP) (approximately EUR   34,044) is to be paid to each applicant for any pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   (4 th applicant) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (1 st applicant) Violation of Article 8 (correspondence) (1 st applicant) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (1 st applicant) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd applicants) Violation of Article 8 (private life) (4 th applicant) No violation of Article 13 Carbè and Others v. Italy (no. 13697/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 13 Diurno v. Italy (no. 37360/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 No violation of Article 13   Roccaro v. Italy (no. 34562/04) Vinci Mortillaro v. Italy (no. 29070/04) The Court found the above violations in these four cases concerning the applicants’ complaints of infringement of their rights resulting from bankruptcy proceedings.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Athanasiu Marshall v. Romania (no. 21305/05) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning actions for recovery of possession of property.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Babei and Clucerescu v. Romania (no. 27444/03) Paula Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28976/03) In these two cases the Court found the above violations on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Brumǎrescu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 28106/03) The Court found the above violation in this case on account of the applicant’s prolonged inability to make use of his flat and to receive rent.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Günseli Kaya v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 40886/02) The Court found the above violation in this case in which the applicant complained that there had been no public hearing in proceedings brought against her.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gajdoš v. Slovakia (no. 19304/04)   ***   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.