CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 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 } .sB75E72FA { width:328.5pt; display:inline-block } .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 }   528 30.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Italy, Romania, Sweden and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11   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.     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Bárkányi v. Hungary (application no. 37214/05) The applicant, Pál Bárkányi , is a Hungarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Szeged (Hungary). In June 2005 Mr Bárkányi was arrested on charges of theft and then placed in pre-trial detention; in September 2006 he was released and placed under house arrest. Just over one year later he was found guilty of trafficking in stolen goods and sentenced to one year’s suspended imprisonment. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and ensuing house arrest. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention on account of the fact that the overall period – almost two years and three months – of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and house arrest had not been justified. Mr   Bárkányi was awarded 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Fiume v. Italy (no. 20774/05) The applicant, Francesco Fiume, is an Italian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Fisciano (Italy). In 2002 he brought proceedings seeking to have the decision appointing one of his colleagues to the post of customs director set aside and to have a lawful recruitment procedure put in place. Relying on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing), Mr Fiume complained that he was unable to secure the enforcement of a judgment given in his favour in the course of those proceedings. The Court noted that the judgment in question was not a final decision, in that it had been delivered at first instance and an appeal could be lodged against it by the authorities, as indeed had occurred. Consequently, and particularly in view of the domestic rules governing the execution of judgments that were applicable in the present case, it could not consider that the authorities’ failure to execute the judgment pending the outcome of the proceedings had been contrary to the requirements of Article 6, and concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Artimenco v. Romania (no. 12535/04) The applicant, Steluţa Artimenco, is a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Galaţi (Romania). In 2003 she was sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment for trading in influence. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complained of the conditions in which she had been held in various prisons during her pre-trial detention and imprisonment, the unlawfulness of her pre-trial detention and the unfairness of the proceedings against her, and alleged that there had been a breach of her right to respect for private and family life, in that her husband was not authorised to visit her in prison. Referring in particular to the reports of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the Court concluded that the conditions in which the applicant had been detained, in particular the overcrowding in her cell, and the conditions in which she had been transported, without food, to attend hearings to which she had been summoned by the courts examining the criminal case against her, amounted to degrading treatment. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. It awarded Mrs Artimenco EUR 2,500   in non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Fırat v. Turkey (no. 37291/04) The applicant, Mehmet Fırat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. In September 2005 Mr Fırat was arrested and then remanded in custody on suspicion of membership of an organised criminal gang and kidnapping. Released pending trial in November 2005, the case is currently still pending before the Court of Cassation. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the fact that the overall period – just over four years – of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had not been justified. Mr   Fırat was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Füsun Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 16234/04) The applicants, Füsun Erdoğan, İbrahim Çiçek, Birol Paşa and Delil İldan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960, 1956, 1967 and 1973 respectively. In March 1996 they were arrested and taken into police custody as part of an investigation into the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that they had been tortured while in police custody and complained that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their allegations of ill-treatment. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they also complained of the excessive length of the proceedings they had brought against the officers responsible for their police custody. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the torture to which the applicants had been subjected. It also found, with regard to the investigation conducted into the applicants’ allegations, that the Turkish authorities could not be considered to have acted with sufficient promptness or reasonable diligence, and accordingly concluded that there had been a further violation of Article 3. It also held that it was not necessary to rule separately on the remainder of the complaints. It awarded each of the applicants EUR 10,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 jointly 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.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mandola v. Italy (no. 38596/02) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the inadequacy of expropriation compensation awarded to the applicant.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Daniel Ionel Constantin v. Romania (no. 17034/03) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant because he had not paid stamp duty.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Octavian Popescu v. Romania (no. 20589/04) Priotese v. Romania (no. 2916/04) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Schmidt v. Romania (no. 28777/03) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s inability to use property that had been returned to him and to receive rent.     Length-of-proceedings case   Friendly settlement Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden (no. 44298/02) In this case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of taxation 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.