CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s2C7B3542 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0000ff } .s7FAB69C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0000ff } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 }   580 16.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,Poland, Romania, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 28   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) Nenov v. Bulgaria (application no. 33738/02) The applicant, Iordan Nenkov Nenov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). He suffers from a mental illness, which is why his ex-wife applied to the courts in 2002 to have his right of contact with their children modified. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant alleged in particular that his inability to benefit from the advice of officially assigned counsel had infringed his right to a fair hearing. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13, and in view of the subject-matter of the dispute, which had led to a change in his right of contact with his minor children, he further complained of a breach of his right to respect for his family life and of the lack of a remedy by which to seek redress. The European Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the major problems that the applicant had encountered in defending his case effectively. It held further that it was unnecessary to examine the complaints based on Articles   8 and   13. The Court awarded Mr Nenov 5,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,510 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kobelyan v. Georgia (no. 40022/05) The applicant, Leva Kobelyan, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Ninotsminda (Georgia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained in particular about the length of criminal proceedings instituted against him in 2000 for economic crimes. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – approximately six years and ten months – of the criminal proceedings for three levels of jurisdiction. Mr   Kobelyan was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Christodoulou v. Greece (no. 514/07) The applicant, Grigorios Christodoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1938 and lives in Athens. After his request to have his old-age pension readjusted was rejected in 2001, he appealed to the Audit Court. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained of a breach of his right of access to a court on account of the annulment of the proceedings before the Audit Court, which found that the acknowledgment of receipt of the notice of appeal he had served on the other party had been filed in court out of time, according to the legislation then in force. The Court expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1, as the application of the procedural rule in question had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely, ensuring the proper administration of justice. It awarded Mr   Christodoulou EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,217.50   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Two violations of Article 8 Ņikitenko v. Latvia (no. 62609/00) The applicant, Vladimirs Ņikitenko, 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 1964. According to the most recent information available to the Court, he was in prison in Jelgava (Latvia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his police custody. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and Article 34 (right of individual petition), he also complained of unjustified interference with his right to respect for correspondence, particularly with the Court. The Court found that the applicant’s conditions of detention – from 24 January to 28 February 2000 – in a temporary isolation cell in Jelgava police station had amounted to “degrading treatment” resulting in a violation of Article 3. It also held that there had been violations of Article   8 on account of the ban on corresponding with his mother and girlfriend during his detention and the opening by the prison authorities of the letters addressed to the applicant by the Court. No separate issue arose under Article   34. Mr   Nikitenko did not submit any claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova (no. 39815/07) The applicant, Baroul Partner-A, is a company incorporated in Moldova. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), it alleged that certain judicial proceedings against it for economic crimes had been unfair in particular since the domestic courts examined the case, brought by the Prosecutor General, notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the company further complained that its purchase of shares had been annulled in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court held unanimously that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Mgłosik v. Poland (no. 8403/02) The applicant, Rafal Mgłosik, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Tychy (Poland). He is currently serving a prison sentence. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that his pre-trial detention had been excessively long. The case further concerned censorship of the applicant’s correspondence with the Court, which raised a question with respect to Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length – just over four years – of Mr   Mgłosik’s pre-trial detention and a violation of Article 8, on account of censorship of the applicant’s letters to the Court. He was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Pasternak v. Poland (no. 42785/06) The applicant, Adam Pasternak, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Warsaw. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), he complained that while in detention in 2006 and 2007 his correspondence with the Court had been censored. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8. He was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 Baka v. Romania (no. 30400/02) The applicant, György Baka, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Gyula (Hungary). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the length of criminal proceedings against him which had ended in November 2002 having lasted more than three years and three months. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1 and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Marian Stoicescu v. Romania (no. 12934/02) The applicant, Marian Stoicescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Port-Vendres (France). Relying in substance on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complained about the conditions of his detention between September 2002 and April 2003 in Bucharest-Jivala Prison, where he was serving a sentence for attempted murder with aggravating circumstances. He referred to prison overcrowding, poor-quality water and a deplorable lack of hygiene. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article   3 and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Potapov v. Russia (no. 14934/03) The applicant, Vyacheslav Potapov, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Novosibirsk Region (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complained, in particular, that his conviction had been upheld on appeal as a result of the Supreme Court’s failure to provide him with legal assistance during those proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) on account of the unavailability of free legal representation, and awarded Mr   Potapov EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Tsarkov v. Russia (no. 16854/03) The applicant, Vitaliy Tsarkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Tomsk (Russia). Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that his arrest and detention pending investigation had been unlawful, and that his pre-trial detention had been extended indefinitely. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5   §   1 concerning Mr   Tsarkov’s pre-trial detention from 29   August to 19   November 2002, and that there had been a violation of this provision on account of his detention from 20   November 2002 to 21   July 2004. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length – approximately four years and one month – of his detention. The Court awarded Mr   Tsarkov EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   875.40 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Yananer v. Turkey (no. 6291/05) The applicant, Bülent Yananer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Bodrum. He complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations. He relied in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   3 on account of the ill-treatment sustained by the applicant in police custody , and the shortcomings of the investigations into his complaints of ill-treatment. The   Court further considered that   there was no need to examine the complaint separately under Articles   6 and 13. Mr   Yananer was awarded EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 13 Ali Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 35160/05) The applicant, Ali Yavuz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bursa. He complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that   the ensuing criminal proceedings had been ineffective due to the acquittal of the accused police officers on statutory time limitation grounds. He further alleged that it had not been possible for him to seek compensation before the civil courts. He relied in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   3 on account of the ill-treatment sustained by the applicant in police custody, and the acquittal of the accused police officers by domestic courts due to statutory time limitations. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy for Mr Yavuz to obtain compensation for the alleged violations. The   Court further considered that   there was no need to examine the complaint separately under Articles   6 and 14. Mr   Yavuz submitted his claims for just satisfaction out of time. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Daneshpayeh v. Turkey (no. 21086/04) The applicant, Davud Daneshpayeh, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Adana (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that the length of civil court proceedings against him had been excessive and that no remedy had been available by which to challenge that length. The Court held that there had been a violation of Articles   6   §   1 and 13. Referring to Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), the Court, pointing out that the violation of Article 13 had occurred because there was no national court before which the applicant could complain about the length of judicial proceedings, held that the most appropriate means of putting an end to the violation found would be to bring the domestic law into line with Article 13 of the Convention. It also referred to its case-law on the subject and drew the Government’s attention to the relevant texts adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (which supervises the execution of judgments), in particular regarding judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem and regarding the improvement of domestic remedies. The applicant did not lodge any claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Çimen Işık v. Turkey (no. 12550/03) Elçiçek and Others v. Turkey (no. 6094/03) The applicants, Çimen Işık, Hadi Elçiçek, Kulink Sevilgen and Salih Tuğrul, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979, 1968, 1961 and 1956 respectively. They were convicted of various offences related to their membership of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (c) and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial), they complained that they had had no legal assistance during their police custody. Ms Işık also complained that she had been unable to obtain the examination of witnesses on her behalf. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   3   (c) taken together with Article   6   §   1 because they had not had a lawyer during their police custody. It also held that, in the case of Çimen Işık , it was not necessary to examine the complaint lodged under Article   6   §   3   (d). The Court awarded each of the applicants EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Mücek v. Turkey (no. 7605/05) The applicant, Ahmet Akif Mücek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Kandıra (Turkey). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the length of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation (the Dev-Yol , “Revolutionary Way”). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length – 11   years – of Mr   Mücek’s pre-trial detention, and awarded him EUR   9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for 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.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aurel Popa v. Romania (no. 21318/02) Chambre de Commerce, d’Industrie et d’Agriculture de Timişoara (No. 1) v. Romania (nos.   13248/05, 13321/05, 23462/05, 23471/05, 23475/05, 23482/05, 23490/05, 23493/05, 23496/05, 23501/05, 23504/05 and 23517/05) Chambre de Commerce, d’Industrie et d’Agriculture de Timişoara (No. 2) v. Romania (nos. 23520/05, 23524/05, 23544/05, 23550/05, 26288/05, 27175/05, 27176/05, 27177/05, 27178/05, 27179/05, 27180/05, 27181/05 and 27182/05) David v. Romania (no. 34247/06) The Court found the above violation on account of the applicants’ inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Christodoulou , the Court declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Christodoulou v. Cyprus (no. 30282/06) Bayer v. Germany (no. 8453/04) D.E. v. Germany (no. 1126/05) Naugzemys v. Lithuania (no. 17997/04) Suchecki v. Poland (No. 1) (no. 20166/07) Kharitonov v. Russia (no. 39898/03) Karataş and Yıldız and Others v. Turkey (nos. 4889/05, 4897/05, 24009/05, 33694/05, 37759/05, 42996/06, 43031/06, 43019/06, 43038/06 and 43054/06)     ***   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.