CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 juillet 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 } .s2C7B3542 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; 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 }   554 07.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Albania, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 31 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) D. v. Finland (no. 30542/04) The applicant, Mr   D., is an American national who was born in 1952 and lives in Finland. Convicted in June 2003 of aggravated sexual abuse of his daughter, born in 1997, the applicant complained about the use of the child’s videotaped account as essential evidence in the criminal proceedings against him and about the lack   of access to the child’s examination   material at a stage where it would have been of proper use for his defence. He relied on Article   6   §§ 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) and (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses). The Court found that the applicant’s allegations amounted to a complaint that he had not received a fair trial and therefore had to be examined under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). It then concluded that the use of the child’s videotaped account as essential evidence, without an adequate and timely opportunity to put questions to the child on the basis of sufficient background information, had involved such limitations on the rights of the defence that the applicant could not be said to have received a fair trial. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded Mr   D. 4,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   6,197 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Annunziata v. Italy (no. 24423/03) Piacenti v. Italy (no. 24425/03) The applicants, Egidio Annunziata and Salvatore Piacenti, are Italian nationals who were born in 1961 and 1957 respectively. When they lodged their applications they were in prison in Parma (Italy). Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), they complained that the prison authorities had intercepted their correspondence without a sufficient legal basis. The Court held unanimously, in both cases, that there had been a violation of Article 8, and that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded each applicant EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 Zavoloka v. Latvia (no. 58447/00) The applicant, Nadežda Zavoloka, previously a national of the former USSR (Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics), is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia who was born in 1954 and lives in Liepāja (Latvia). Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complained about the Latvian courts’ refusal to award her compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to her by the death of her daughter, who had been knocked down by a car on the public highway. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 2 (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 2 Leparskienė v. Lithuania (no. 4860/02) The applicant, Julija Leparskienė, is a Lithuanian national. In May 2001 Ms Leparskienė’s 15-year old son, on refusing to stop the car he was driving, was shot by a police officer; he was seriously injured and died a few months later. The police officer concerned was subsequently convicted of abuse of office and manslaughter and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment; the execution of his sentence was suspended for three years.   Relying   on Article   2 (right to life), the applicant complained   that the police   officer should have been convicted of murder, that his punishment   had been   inadequate and that there   had been   no effective   investigation into her son’s death or legal remedy to obtain compensation. The Court   considered that the investigation following the incident had been proper and effective: it had started on the very day of the shooting when many other investigative actions had also been carried out; the applicant had been recognised as a   victim and granted access to the investigation and the trial; and,   last but not least, the investigation had established both the cause of death of the applicant’s son and the identity of the person responsible for it. In addition,   the domestic courts had given substantial reasoning as to why they had characterised the act committed by the officer as manslaughter as well as specified grounds for opting to suspend the sentence. Finally,   the authorities had dismissed   the police officer in question   from the police and he had never been re-employed by the police or other law enforcement authorities. Therefore, the   Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 2.   The Court   also found that by   failing to bring a   claim for non-pecuniary damage before the civil courts   the applicant had not fully exhausted the available domestic remedies and dismissed   her claim in respect of the non-availability of a legal remedy by which to obtain compensation.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1(protection of property) Padalevičius v. Lithuania (no. 12278/03) The applicant, Juozas Padalevičius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in the Kaunas region (Lithuania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr Padalevičius complained about the excessive length of civil litigation. Further relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained about the annulment of his title to a plot of land derived from a transaction which the domestic courts found to have been in breach of the restitution laws. Addressing the applicant’s complaints about the length of proceedings the Court reiterated that where the outcome of proceedings was decisive for civil rights and obligations, those   proceedings came within the scope of Article   6 §   1 even if they were conducted before a Constitutional Court. The Court held that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court about the constitutionality of the Government’s decrees on the basis of which the land purchase agreement had been concluded   had been closely linked to the proceedings before the civil courts. In the light of all the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that the reasonable time required by Article 6 § 1 had been exceeded, and that there had therefore been a breach of that provision. As regards the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, the Court emphasised that it was   mindful of the importance of the legitimate aims pursued by the   restitution   laws and the particular difficulties   States faced   when regulating the restitution of nationalised property after decades of totalitarian rule. Consequently,   the Court would not regard as disproportionate every imbalance between the relevant public interest and   the effects of restitution laws on the particular individual concerned. A certain "threshold" of hardship must have been crossed for the Court to find a breach of the applicant’s Article 1 Protocol No. 1 rights. Having examined in detail the applicant’s situation,   the Court did not consider that   such a threshold of hardship had been reached in respect of him. Therefore   this part of the application was dismissed as manifestly   ill-founded. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Dyller v. Poland (no. 39842/05) Maciejewski v. Poland (no. 23755/03) Maruszak v. Poland (no. 11253/07) Woźniak v. Poland (no. 29940/06)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Feliński v. Poland (no. 31116/03)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Grzegorz Hulewicz v. Poland (no. 6544/05) The applicants are five Polish nationals, Zbigniew Dyller, Ryszard Feliński, Grzegorz Hulewicz, Maksymilian Maciejewski and Robert Maruszak, and one Hungarian national, Richard Woźniak. They were born in 1961, 1948, 1974, 1961, 1982 and 1968, respectively. They all live in Poland, Mr   Hulewicz and Mr   Maruszak being currently in detention. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), all the applicants complained about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention on various charges such as robbery, drug-trafficking and murder. The case of Feliński also concerned censorship of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and the case of Maruszak the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). The Court held unanimously that in the first five cases there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length of the applicants’ detention: almost two years in the case of Dyller ; just over six years and seven months in the case of Maciejewski ; approximately three years and 11 months in the case of Maruszak ; two years and seven months in the case of Woźniak ; and, just over four years and five months in the case of Feliński . No violation of this Article was found in the case of Grzegorz Hulewicz . In the case of Feliński , the Court raised of its own motion an issue under Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), and held unanimously that there had been a violation of this provision on account of the fact that Mr   Feliński’s correspondence with the Court had been censored. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded sums ranging between EUR   1,000 and EUR   4,000 to Mr   Dyller, Mr   Feliński and Mr   Woźniak. Mr   Woźniak was also awarded EUR   200 for costs and expenses. Mr   Maciejewski and Mr   Maruszak failed to submit claims for just satisfaction within the prescribed time-limit. (The judgments are available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Kata v. Poland (no. 9590/06) The applicant, Stanisław Kata, is a Polish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Lubin (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), Mr Kata complained that by being required to pay excessive court fees in appeal proceedings concerning his disability pension he had been deprived of access to court. The Court considered that the domestic courts had carefully examined the applicant’s financial situation and the extent to which he could realistically have been expected to contribute to the costs of his appeal. In the circumstances, it was not for the Court to controvert the domestic courts’ findings and there had therefore been no violation of Article   6   §   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Kisielewski v. Poland (no. 26744/02) The applicant, Witold Kisielewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Cracow (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Kisielewski complained about the unfairness of three sets of criminal proceedings against him for, among other offences, handling stolen property. The case also concerned censorship of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). The Court raised and examined the issue of Poland’s compliance with Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), and held that there had been a violation of this Article on account of the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with the Court. Mr   Kisielewski was awarded EUR   500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Plechanow v. Poland (no. 22279/04) The applicants, Jerzy Plechanow, Ariadna Plechanow and Andrzej Plechanow, are Polish nationals who were born in 1953, 1924 and 1955 respectively and live in Warszawa (Poland). The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the unfairness of decisions refusing their claim for compensation with regard to expropriation of their property. They relied on Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). In the Court’s opinion, the applicants seemed to have fallen victims of the national administrative reforms, the inconsistency of the domestic case-law and the lack of legal certainty and coherence in this respect. As a result, the applicants had been unable to obtain due compensation for damage suffered, in violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. The Court further held that there was no need to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Articles   6 and   13. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Polańscy v. Poland (no. 21700/02) The applicants, Krystyna Polańscy and Jan Polańscy, are Polish nationals who live in Bystra (Poland). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained in particular about the delay in payment of compensation for property they owned which was expropriated to widen a road. The Court, having noted that the compensation had been ultimately paid to the applicants on 13 September 2007, observed that the delay in payment had lasted at least eight years and nine months and no justification for it had been provided by the authorities. In addition, the compensation granted had not covered the non-pecuniary damage the applicants had to have suffered as a result of the delay. The Court held therefore that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   13. The applicants were awarded, jointly, EUR   7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   334 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Stanca Popescu v. Romania (no. 8727/03) The applicant, Stanca Popescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1921 and lives in Bârla (Romania). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complained about the reversal, upon an application to re-open the proceedings, of a judgment ordering the return to her of a plot of land. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and found that it did not need to rule on the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded Ms Popescu EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Akyaz v. Turkey (no. 6178/04) The applicant, İhsan Akyaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971. Suspected of belonging to the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation, he was arrested and taken into police custody in 1996. Since then he has been awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length – more than seven years and seven months – of his pre-trial detention. It further found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length – more than 13 years – of the proceedings still pending before the domestic courts. Mr Akyaz was awarded EUR   12,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Cahit Demirel v. Turkey (no. 18623/03) The applicant, Cahit Demirel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Batman (Turkey). Mr Demirel was arrested in April 1996 on suspicion of involvement in the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. He was released pending trial in May 2003. The proceedings against him were ultimately terminated in May 2005 on the ground that the statutory time-limit had expired. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention pending trial as well as of the criminal proceedings against him and the fact that there was no effective remedy to challenge the decisions which ordered his continued detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§   3 and   4 on account of the length of Mr   Demirel’s detention pending trial which had lasted nearly six years and four months, and the lack of an effective remedy for him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Moreover, the Court found that the violations of Article 5   §§   3 and   4 found in this case originated in widespread and systemic problems arising out of the malfunctioning of the Turkish criminal justice system and the state of the relevant Turkish legislation, and reiterated that Turkey had a legal obligation to adopt the necessary measures in order to put an end to the violations found and redress as far as possible their effects. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – nine years and one month – of the criminal proceedings. Mr   Demirel was awarded EUR   7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) Tağaç and Others v. Turkey (no. 71864/01) The applicants, Sevgi Tağaç, Cihan Kırmızıgül, Mehmet Akbaba, Evrim Sarısaltıkoğlu and Suna Yaşar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1967, 1978, 1979, 1973 and 1965, respectively. They all live in Istanbul, except for Ms   Yaşar who lives in Allschwill (Switzerland). In February 1999 the applicants were convicted of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the MLKP-K (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party Foundation) and sentenced to between eight and 12 years’ imprisonment each. Relying on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing), they complained about the lack of independence and impartiality of the Istanbul State Security Court which had tried and convicted them as well as of the lack of legal assistance while they had been in police custody. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court, and a violation of Article   6   §   1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3   (c) on account of the lack of effective legal assistance during their detention in police custody. The Court awarded each applicant EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,600, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Yerdelenli v. Turkey (no. 41253/04) The applicant, Serkan Yerdelenli, is a Turkish-American national who was born in 1972. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had been ill-treated while in police custody at the Kadıköy security police headquarters and that the police officers responsible for his custody had benefitted from impunity. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3, in respect of both the ill-treatment and the lack of an effective investigation into the complaint, and awarded Mr Yerdelenli EUR   10,000 in respect of 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Becskei v. Romania (no. 8266/05) Turus v. Romania (no. 31566/03) The Court found the above violation in these two cases concerning actions for recovery of possession of property.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Roman v. Romania (no. 30453/04) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce a final decision awarding compensation in the applicant’s favour.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The Court held that no separate issue arose under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in the case of Vorona and Voronov , and declared the remainder of the applications in the cases of Gordon-Krajcer and Padalevičiusi inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Vorona and Voronov v. Lithuania (no. 22906/04) Gordon-Krajcer v. Poland (no. 5943/07) Prądzyńska-Pozdiakow v. Poland (no. 20982/07) Przybyła v. Poland (no. 42778/07) Tymieniecki v. Poland (no. 33744/06) Waltoś and Pawlicz v. Poland (nos. 28309/06 and 48102/06) Ďurech and Others v. Slovakia (no. 42561/04)     ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.