CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt }   703 29.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Albania, Italy, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22 Chamber judgments. The judgments only available in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   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.     Gjyli v. Albania (application no. 32907/07) The applicant, Ali Gjyli, is an Albanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Durrës (Albania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the non-enforcement of two court judgments ordering his reinstatement in his post as Director of a vocational training centre and the payment of salary arrears. This complaint also raised questions relating to Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Violation of Article   6   §   1 Violation of Article   13 Just satisfaction: 2,100   euros   (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,150 (costs and expenses)   Vrioni and Others v. Albania and Italy (nos. 35720/04 and 42832/06) The applicants are Shahin Vrioni, an Albanian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Albania, and three Albanian and Italian nationals, Gherardo La Francesca, Dario La Francesca and Oliver Vrioni, who were born in 1946, 1950 and 1974 respectively and live in Italy. The case concerned judicial proceedings for recovery of property (a plot of land) and compensation. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained mainly of failure to enforce a final domestic judgment entitling them to receive compensation, of the excessive length of proceedings and of lack of effective remedies by which to obtain a final determination of their property rights. Violation of Article   6   §   1 (concerning Albania) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (concerning Albania) Violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (concerning Albania) Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Jánosi v. Hungary (no. 19689/05) The applicants, Mr   and   Mrs   Jószef Jánosi, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1958 respectively and live in Szolnok (Hungary). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complained of the excessive length of proceedings concerning the ownership of their real estate. Violation of Article   6   §   1 Just satisfaction: EUR   1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,000 (costs and expenses)   Kotowski v. Poland (no. 12772/06) The applicant, Marek Kotowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Bydgoszcz (Poland). Relying, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), the applicant complained that his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights had been censored by the authorities during his detention for physical and mental cruelty towards his common-law wife. Violation of Article   8 Just satisfaction: EUR   500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Tarnowski v. Poland (No. 1) (no. 33915/03) Tarnowski v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 43934/07) The applicants are three brothers: Juliusz Tarnowski, Marek Tarnowski and Aleksander Tarnowski. They are Polish nationals who were born in 1929, 1932 and 1934 respectively and live in Kraków and Sopot (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complained about the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning property issues. They also complained that the domestic courts had failed to take appropriate and speedy action to restore their property to them, in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). No violation of Article   6   §   1 No violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1   Wiśniewski v. Poland (no. 43610/06) The applicant, Janusz Wiśniewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and is currently detained in Wrocław Prison (Poland). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings against him concerning thefts and armed robberies. Violation of Article   5   §   3 Just satisfaction: EUR   1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Chiriţǎ v. Romania (no. 37147/02)* The applicant, Marioara Chiriţǎ, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerned her arrest, the criminal proceedings against her and her detention after she was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, as well as a civil action to recover a house. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial), and 34 (right of individual application), she alleged that she had suffered ill-treatment into which no effective investigation had been carried out, that the criminal and civil proceedings had been unfair in several respects. No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) No violation of Article 34   Tomčáni v. Slovakia (no. 19011/05) The applicant, Ján Tomčáni, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Hontianske Nemce (Slovakia). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud. Violation of Article   6   §   1 Just satisfaction: EUR   3,550 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,300 (costs and expenses)   Cihangül v. Turkey (no. 44292/04) Dikel v. Turkey (no. 8543/05) İlter v. Turkey (no. 43554/04) Meridan v. Turkey (no. 38011/05) Okan Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 43696/04) Tevfik Okur v. Turkey (no. 2843/05) Tamay and Others v. Turkey (nos. 38287/04, 1416/05, 1688/05, 2596/05, 12342/05, 17250/05, 20241/05, 26665/05, 29859/05, 30476/05, 31959/05, 37140/05, 37196/05 and 23484/06)* The applicants are 21 Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained about the lack of access to classified information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court in judicial proceedings before that court and/or the non-communication to them of the written opinion of that court’s principal public prosecutor. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction : - Cihangül v. Turkey, Dikel v. Turkey, İlter v. Turkey, Meridan v. Turkey, Okan Erdoğan v. Turkey: EUR   6,500, each (non-pecuniary damage) (four applicants) and EUR   2,000 (costs and expenses) (one applicant) - Tamay and Others v. Turkey: EUR   6,500, each (non-pecuniary damage) (14 applicants) and EUR   4,460 (costs and expenses) (six applicants)   Fokas v. Turkey (no. 31206/02) The applicants, Ioannis Fokas and Evangelos Fokas, are Greek nationals who were born in 1945 and 1948 respectively and live in Katerini (Greece). The case concerned the applicants’ inability as Greek citizens to inherit their sister’s immovable property in Turkey on account of their nationality and of the principle of reciprocity between Greece and Turkey. They relied in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Ümit Gül v. Turkey (no. 7880/02) The applicant, Ümit Gül, is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin who was born in 1982 and lives in Düsseldorf (Germany). In 2001 he was arrested on suspicion of having written slogans on a wall in support of an illegal organisation. Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had been tortured while in police custody. Violations of Article   3 Just satisfaction: EUR   11,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,000 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Costǎchescu v. Romania (no. 37805/05)* Tǎnǎsescu v. Romania (no. 23692/02)* These cases concerned the non-enforcement of judgments by the Romanian authorities of final judgments in the applicants’ favour. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: Costǎchescu: question reserved for decision at a later date. Tǎnǎsescu : enforcement of judgments within three months or, failing that, payment of EUR   5,000 (pecuniary damage); and in any case, EUR   2,000 (non-pecuniary damage)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Panzari the applicant also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Panzari v. Moldova (no. 27516/04) Violation of Article   6   §   1 Violation of Article   13   Korcz v. Poland (no. 33429/07) Violation of Article   6   §   1     ***   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.