CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 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 } .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 }   591 21.7.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23   Chamber judgments, none of which are 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kvitsiani v. Georgia (application no. 16277/07) The applicant, Amiran Kvitsiani, is a Georgian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Tbilisi (Georgia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that a judgment delivered in his favour in December 2000, obliging the authorities to pay him compensation for having destroyed his house during a police operation in September 1997, had not been enforced for several years. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that, by failing for five and a half years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant’s favour, the domestic authorities had impaired the essence of his right to a court and interfered with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. The Court awarded Mr   Kvitsiani 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aleksa v. Lithuania (no. 27576/05) Igarienė and Petrauskienė v. Lithuania (no. 26892/05) The applicants, Valentinas Aleksa, Laima Sofija Igarienė and Diana Petrauskienė, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1951, 1938 and 1968 respectively and live in Kaunas (Lithuania). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the excessively long civil proceedings regarding the restitution of parts of a building in Kaunas, of not being able to obtain restitution of the premises in kind and of not being able to enjoy their property because of the protracted nature of the proceedings. The Court held, unanimously, that in both cases there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1. It further held by six votes to one in the case of Aleksa , and unanimously, in the case of Igarienė and Petrauskienė , that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. In respect of non-pecuniary damage the Court awarded EUR   1,000 to Mr   Aleksa and EUR   4,500 each to Ms   Igarienė and Ms   Petrauskienė. For costs and expenses, Mr   Aleksa was awarded EUR   655. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Janus v. Poland (no. 8713/03) The applicant, Antoni Janus, was a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lived in Czarne (Poland). Following his death on 29   November 2008, his mother expressed the wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in her late son’s stead. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained in particular of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention on charges of murder which had started in September 2001. The case further concerned whether the fact that the applicant’s letter of 9   February 2003, sent to the Court’s Registry from the Chojnice Remand Centre, had been stamped “censored” breached his right to correspondence under Article   8 (right to respect for private life and correspondence). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length – over two-and-a-half years – of the applicant’s detention on remand. The Court raised on its own motion an issue under Article   8 concerning the applicant’s correspondence with the Court while in detention and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 on account of the monitoring of his correspondence which had been contrary to domestic law. The Court awarded Mr   Janus EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article   5   §   3 Kacprzyk v. Poland (no. 50020/06) The applicant, Rafał Kacprzyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Ustka Prison (Poland) after being convicted at first instance of having committed a series of criminal offences against banks and pending his appeal. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the excessive length both of his pre-trial detention, which had started in October 2004, and of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the length – almost two years – of Mr   Kacprzyk’s pre-trial detention, and awarded him EUR   800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Seliwiak v. Poland (no. 3818/04) The applicant, Maciej Seliwiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Łęczyca Prison (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complained in particular that his defence rights had been seriously limited because he could not attend the only hearing held before the appellate court in July 2003 in his criminal case on charges of burglary. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) on account of the applicant having been unable to address the court personally or in writing, to submit comments on the observations made by the prosecution or on matters he regarded as relevant to the outcome of his case. The Court awarded Mr   Seliwiak EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Alexandru Marius Radu v. Romania (no. 34022/05) The applicant, Alexandru Marius Radu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1974 and is currently detained in Ploieşti Penitentiary (Romania) after being sentenced in May 2006 for robbery with violence. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained of the failure of the authorities to protect him from physical abuse which he claimed he had suffered while in pre-trial detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the authorities’ not having intervened satisfactorily to protect the applicant when they had been aware of the fact that other detainees had ill-treated him and awarded him EUR   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Grišević and Others v. Serbia (nos. 16909/06, 38989/06 and 39235/06) The applicants, Safa Grišević, Dragoš Vranić and Mladomirka Vučićević, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1962, 1954 and 1965 respectively and live in Novi Pazar (Serbia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgments rendered in their favour ordering their employer to pay them leave benefits for a period when they had been placed on compulsory paid leave in 1995 and 1998. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the State’s failure to enforce the final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   2,100 each to Ms   Grišević and Mr   Vranić, and EUR   1,800 to Ms   Vučićević. For costs and expenses, Mr   Vranić and Ms   Vučićević were each awarded EUR   300. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gaspari v. Slovenia (no. 21055/03) The applicant, Alenka Blaž (later changed to Gaspari), is a Slovenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Ljubljana (Slovenia). Relying on Articles 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses) to the Convention, she alleged that the domestic proceedings, which had started in May 1993 and which concerned the annulment of a divorce-related agreement between her and her late ex-husband, had been unfair. She further complained that she had not had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court as the constitutional appeals of the opposite party had not been served on her. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the failure to communicate two constitutional appeals to the applicant. Mrs   Blaž (Gaspari) was awarded EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Dün v. Turkey (no. 17727/02) The applicant, Özgür Dün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was arrested and taken into police custody three times between April   2000 and December   2001 on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the length of his periods in police custody. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 in respect of the applicant’s time in police custody between 16 and   21   August 2001, and awarded him EUR   500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Koç and Yürek v. Turkey (no. 15179/02) The applicants, Ali Koç and Yılmaz Yürek, are two Turkish nationals. They were born in 1971 and 1972 respectively and live in Gaziantep (Turkey). In January 1993 they were remanded in custody on suspicion of being members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation, and of carrying out attacks on police officers. They were subsequently found guilty as charged. Relying mainly on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complained in particular of the length of the criminal proceedings against them.   Pehlivanoğlu v. Turkey (no. 45873/05) The applicant, Koray Pehlivanoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara. He was remanded in custody in 1980, released in 1981 and acquitted in 1983. In June 1998 he instituted proceedings against the Treasury, seeking compensation for the damage resulting from his detention. His claim was dismissed in a decision which the Court of Cassation upheld in May 2006. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr Pehlivanoğlu complained of the length of those proceedings.   In both these cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 as the proceedings had lasted approximately eight years and seven months in the case of Koç and Yürek , and seven years and 11 months in the case of Pehlivanoğlu . In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   3,000 to each of the applicants in Koç and Yürek , and EUR   1,000 to Mr Pehlivanoğlu. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 13 Müdet Kömürcü v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 40160/05) The applicant, Müdet Kömürcü, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained of having been tortured in late November 1997 during his detention in police custody on suspicion of his involvement in a terrorist organisation and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation capable of establishing the facts and punishing those responsible for torturing him. He also complained that he had been denied the right to seek compensation before the civil courts as the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been dismissed for exceeding the statutory time-limit. The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article   3 on account of the ill-treatment to which Mr Kömürcü had been subjected while in police custody and on account of the   acquittal of the accused police officers by domestic courts due to statutory time-limitations. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 on account of the impossibility for the applicant to obtain compensation for the alleged violations. Mr Kömürcü was awarded EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Two violations of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Okçu v. Turkey (no. 39515/03) The applicant, Hadin Okçu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). While working as a district watchman for the Diyarbakır police headquarters he was wounded by a bullet fired by armed robbers. As a result he was compelled to take early retirement, in 1991. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr   Okçu complained of the loss in value of the compensation awarded to him by the domestic courts following proceedings he considered to be excessively lengthy. Relying also on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that he had not had effective remedies in domestic law by which to complain of the length of the proceedings and secure redress for the depreciation in value of his compensation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 as the proceedings had lasted more than fifteen years before five tribunals at two levels of jurisdiction. It also found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the considerable loss in value of the compensation awarded by the domestic courts after fifteen years and four months of proceedings. In addition, it found two violations of Article   13 on account of the lack of effective remedies in Turkish law by which the applicant could have complained of the excessive length of the domestic proceedings and obtained redress for the loss in value of his compensation. The Court awarded Mr   Okçu EUR   40,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   16,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   240 for translation costs. (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 (fairness) Brezeanu v. Romania (no. 10097/05) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant because she had not paid stamp duty. It also held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cernitu v. Romania (no. 11474/04) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the recovery of possession of property nationalised under the communist regime.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ciornei v. Romania (no. 6098/05) The Court found the above violations in this case on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Naghi v. Romania (no. 31139/03) Simionescu-Râmniceanu v. Romania (no. 16272/03) Ştefănescu and Others v. Romania (no. 34741/07) The Court found the above violation in these three cases on account of the applicants’ inability to obtain effective compensation for illegally nationalised property belonging to them. It also held that it was not necessary to examine the remainder of the complaints in the cases of Simionescu-Râmniceanu and Ştefănescu and Others .   Violations of Article 6 §§ 1 (length and fairness) Giç v. Turkey (no. 8126/02) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court in criminal proceedings against the applicant, and the length of those proceedings.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Üçpınar v. Turkey (no. 41479/05) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the depreciation of additional compensation for expropriation on account of the inadequacy of the statutory rate of default interest.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kania v. Poland (no. 12605/03)     ***   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.