CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   603 28.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15   Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] 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 Olaru and Others v. Moldova (application nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07) The applicants are six Moldovan nationals who live in Moldova. Vasile Olaru, Vera Gusan and Simion Racu were born in 1971, 1955 and 1951 respectively and live in Chişinău. Artur, Corina and Olivia Lungu were born in 1972, 1973 and 1994 respectively and live in Straseni.   Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the authorities’ failure to comply with final judicial decisions delivered by the domestic courts between 1998 and 2006 and ordering the respective municipal authorities to provide the applicants with social housing. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention on account of the State’s failure to enforce the final domestic judgments in favour of the applicants, and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Furthermore, the Court observed the existence of a widespread structural problem originating in the relevant Moldovan legislation which bestowed social housing privileges on a very wide category of persons. Because of chronic lack of funds on the part of local governments, the cases from the social housing group were very rarely enforced; this had resulted in the State’s recurrent failure to comply with final judgments awarding social housing in respect of which aggrieved parties had no effective domestic remedy. The Court held that, within six months from the date on which the judgment became final, the State had to set up an effective domestic remedy for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments concerning social housing, and, within one year, to grant such redress to all victims of related non-enforcement in cases lodged with the Court before the delivery of the present judgment. It further held that it would adjourn for one year from the date on which the judgment became final the proceedings in all cases concerning social housing. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Białas v. Poland (no. 29761/03) The applicant, Janusz Białas, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Rzeszów (Poland). In 2000 he started filing appeals seeking the payment of default interest for the late payment of a benefit to which he was entitled as a prison officer. The opinions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court diverged as to which hierarchy of courts had jurisdiction, so no court considered itself competent to hear the case. Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that his case had not been examined by a court. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision, as the Government had not indicated any remedy the applicant could have availed himself of or demonstrated that a civil remedy had effectively been available to Mr   Białas – a “uniformed officer” – at the time. The Court awarded him 2,500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 8 Rachwalski and Ferenc v. Poland (no. 47709/99) The applicants, Piotr Rachwalski and Agata Ferenc, are Polish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Wagrowiec (Poland). Relying in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complained of having been harassed and humiliated by the police during an unlawful entry into their house in June 1997. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the applicants having experienced profound helplessness and humiliation as a result of the actions of the police officers, and a violation of Article   8 on account of the police officers’ entry into the applicants’ house. The Court awarded each applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Smyk v. Poland (no. 8958/04) The applicant, Andrzej Smyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Łuków (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Smyk complained in particular that he had been denied access to the Supreme Court as his legal-aid lawyer had refused to prepare a cassation appeal in proceedings the applicant had brought seeking compensation for physical injuries and suffering which he sustained while serving in the army.   The Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1.     In particular, it found that the mere fact that a legal-aid lawyer could   refuse to represent a party in proceedings before the highest court did not amount to a denial of legal assistance incompatible with the State’s obligations under that Article.   It further noted that the legal-aid lawyer had explained in writing and in detail why a cassation appeal would not have offered reasonable prospects of success. Finally, the Court   held that the applicant   had not been left without adequate legal representation given that there had been sufficient time during which he could have filed his cassation appeal with the help of a privately hired lawyer. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia (no. 30754/04) The applicants, Ivan Dvořáček, and his wife, Jozefa Dvořáčková, are Slovakian nationals who were born in 1942 and 1945 respectively and live in Bratislava. They also filed the application on behalf of their daughter, Ivana, who was born in 1981 and died on 14   March 2004. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained in particular of the failure of the authorities to ensure appropriate medical treatment for their daughter, which had led to heart and lung damage and finally to her death, as well as that the civil proceedings for compensation for damage to their daughter’s health had been excessively long. The Court held unanimously that Ivan Dvořáček and Jozefa Dvořáčková did not have standing under Article   34 (right of individual petition) to complain about a violation of the rights of their deceased daughter. It held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   2, on account of the judicial proceedings concerning medical negligence leading to the death of the applicants’ daughter having lacked promptness and reasonable expedition. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length of those proceedings and that no separate issue arose under Article   8. It awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Ersoy v. Turkey (no. 43279/04) The applicant, Haşim Özgür Ersoy, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul. In September 2001 he was arrested and allegedly ill-treated by the police while on his way to a demonstration organised by a human rights association. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained in particular that he had suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the police and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter, and under Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) he complained of interference with his freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 in respect of both the treatment inflicted on Mr Ersoy, which it considered inhuman, and the lack of an effective investigation into the matter, the independence and impartiality of the investigators being open to doubt. It awarded Mr   Ersoy EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article   6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Gök and Güler v. Turkey (no. 74307/01) The applicants, Orhan Gök and Mazhar Güler, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1975 respectively and live in Istanbul. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complained of having been ill-treated in November 1995 while in police custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. They also complained under Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of being denied a fair trial by having been convicted in November 1999 on the basis of statements given under duress by a tribunal on which a military judge sat. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   3 regarding the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment and that there had been a violation of this Article concerning the shortcomings of the investigations into their complaints of ill-treatment. It also held 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   6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 6 § 3(c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) İzzet Özcan v. Turkey (no. 10324/05) The applicant, İzzet Özcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Arrested in December 1997 for being a member of the illegal organisation PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), he was finally convicted in September 2004. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr Özcan complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and the fact that he had not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 because of the length of the proceedings – about six years and nine months – and a violation of Article   6 § 1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3   (c) because the applicant had not been effectively assisted by a lawyer while in police custody. It awarded him EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Seyithan Demir v. Turkey (no. 25381/02) The applicant, Seyithan Demir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Antalya (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained of having been denied a fair hearing during his trials between 2000 and 2002 on charges of disseminating separatist propaganda, and of the relevant domestic law in force at the time having breached his right to freedom of expression. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3   (c) on account of the proceedings before the first-instance court having taken place in the applicant’s absence. It further held that there was no need to examine the remaining complaints under Articles   6 and   10. Mr   Demir was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Terzi and Erkmen v. Turkey (no. 31300/05) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Abdulvahap Terzi was born in 1969 and lives in Malatya and Recahi Erkmen was born in 1971 and lives in Sivas. Relying, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security, Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained of having been tortured in May 1997 during their detention in custody of security forces on suspicion of car theft and that the authorities had failed to establish the responsibility of the accused police officers. The Court considered that the applicants’ complaints should be examined solely from the standpoint of Article   3. It held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   3 on account of the ill-treatment sustained by the applicants in police custody, and the acquittal of the accused police officers by domestic courts due to statutory time limitations. The Court awarded each applicant EUR   15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Zeki Bayhan v. Turkey (no. 6318/02) The applicant, Zeki Bayhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Hakkari (Turkey). Arrested in June 1998 for being a member of the illegal organisation PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), he was finally convicted in December 2000. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Bayhan complained mainly that he had not been given a fair trial as he had not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody or notified of the opinion of the Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3   (c) because the applicant had not been effectively assisted by a lawyer while in police custody, and a violation of Article   6   §   1 because the opinion of the Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to Mr   Bayhan. It awarded him EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Colceru v. Romania (no. 4321/03) The Court found the above violations in this case on account of the quashing of a final judicial decision on an application by the Procurator General.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dumitraş v. Romania (no. 17979/05) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning actions for recovery of possession of property. Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Alexandrou v. Turkey (no. 16162/90) In its judgment of 20   January 2009 concerning this case, the Court found a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the applicant’s right of access to her property in the northern part of Cyprus, and held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In the present judgment, the Court took note of the friendly settlement between the parties (restitution of one of the properties and compensation of 1,500,000   pounds   sterling   (GBP) (approximately EUR   1,739,920) and struck the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Arga v. Turkey (no. 27803/02) The Court found the above violation in this case on account of the fact that the applicant had not been given a copy of the opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Principal Public Prosecutor and had thus been unable to respond to that opinion. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.     ***   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.