CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s6AE8D4B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   759 13.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 38 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only 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.     Bartosiński v. Poland (application no. 13637/03) The applicant, Krzysztof Bartosinski, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Lubianka (Poland). Mr Bartosinski complained that, while in detention on suspicion of offences involving illegal sale of alcohol and cigarettes, his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights and his family had been monitored. He relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 500   (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   450 (costs and expenses)   Kasza v. Poland (no. 45668/06) Wojciech Kowalski v. Poland (no. 33734/06) The applicants, Krzysztof Kasza and Wojciech Kowalski, are Polish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1968, respectively, and live in Kraków (Poland). Arrested on suspicion of armed robbery in 2000 and 1997, respectively, both applicants complained of the excessive length of their detention pending trial and of the criminal proceedings against them, which are currently still pending. They relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within reasonable time). Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 7,200 to Mr   Kasza and EUR 10,000 to Mr Kowalski (non-pecuniary damage)   Eugen Gabriel Radu v. Romania (no. 3036/04)* The applicant, Eugen Gabriel Radu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953. He was given two prison sentences, in 2001 and 2006 respectively, for aggravated theft and is currently in Baia-Mare prison. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention, which he alleged to have caused permanent partial paralysis in his left hand. Violation of Article 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Ferré Gisbert v. Spain (no. 39590/05)* The applicant, José Ferré Gisbert, is a Spanish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Barcelona. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) he complained that he had been denied his right to a fair hearing, in connection with summary proceedings brought against him by a bank over a mortgage. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Abi and Others v. Turkey (no. 18387/02)* The applicants are 31 Turkish nationals who were arrested and taken into police custody in 2001 in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation (the PKK, Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they complained about their arrest, alleging that it was unlawful, and about their police custody, alleging that its length was excessive. Violation of Article 5 § 3 (All applicants except Ali Abo) Just satisfaction: (27 applicants) EUR 3,000, each; (two applicants) EUR 2,500, each; (one applicant) EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Ahmet Akman v. Turkey (no. 33245/05)* The applicant, Ahmet Akman, is a Turkish national who was born 1987 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complained about the use of force by the police when he was arrested in connection with a demonstration. Violation of Article 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Alkın v. Turkey (no. 75588/01) The applicant, Behice Alkın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Şırnak (Turkey). In 1996 Ms Alkın, 11 years old at the time, stepped on a landmine when playing with other children near the village of Ortabağ; as a result, her left leg was amputated. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) she complained about the excessive length of the compensation proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (less EUR   850 already granted by way of legal aid) (costs and expenses)   Ceyran v. Turkey (no. 17534/03) The applicant, Süleyman Ceyran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Winterthur (Switzerland). The case concerned Mr Ceyran’s complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him on charges of membership of the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way), an illegal organisation. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant   Demirkaya v. Turkey (no. 31721/02) The applicant, Hasan Demirkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). Mr Demirkaya complained that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during his police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and   3 (c) (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Engin v. Turkey (no. 6194/04) The applicant, Ezgin Engin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Kocaeli F-Type Prison (Turkey). Arrested in 1997 on suspicion of membership of the DHKP-C (the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party), Mr Engin complained about the excessive length of his detention during the ensuing criminal proceedings against him, which are currently still pending. He relied on Article   5   § 3 (right to liberty and security). Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 9,200 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000 (costs and expenses)   Fatma Tunç v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 18532/05) Fikret Çetin v. Turkey (no. 24829/03) Oğraş v. Turkey (no. 13918/03) The applicants are three Turkish nationals: Fatma Tunç who was born in 1980 and lives in Kocaeli; and, Yahya Oğraş, born in 1972, and, Fikret Çetin, born in 1969, who both live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). All three applicants complained about being denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody on suspicion of membership of illegal organisations. Mr Fikret Çetin and Mr   Oğraş further complained about the subsequent non-communication to them of the prosecutor’s written observations in the criminal proceedings against them. They all relied in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (c) (right to a fair trial). (All applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (Yahya Oğraş and Fikret Çetin ) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: Fatma Tunç, EUR   1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000 (costs and expenses); Fikret Çetin, EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage); Yahya Oğraş: no just satisfaction – the most appropriate form of redress would be the re-trial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1.   Geçgel and Çelik v. Turkey (nos. 8747/02 and 34509/03) The applicants, Halis Geçgel and Recep Çelik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977 and 1965 respectively. Both are serving prison sentences. The applicants complained in particular that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and that the ensuing criminal proceedings brought against them had been too long. They relied on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Mr Geçgel also complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand, in breach of Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security). (1st applicant) Violation of Article 5 § 3 (Both applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (Both applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 to Mr Geçgel and EUR 4,500 to Mr Çelik (non-pecuniary damage)   Güvenilir v. Turkey (no. 16486/04)* The applicant, Mr   Mehmet Reşat Güvenilir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956. In 1996 he was arrested in connection with a police operation against the TKEP-L (Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist, an illegal armed organisation) following a bomb plot. Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he complained that he had been convicted on the basis of confessions obtained under duress, that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached and that he had had no legal assistance in police custody. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Harun Kartal v. Turkey (no. 23574/04)* The applicant, Mr   Harun Kartal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Düzce (Turkey). In 1993 he was arrested and taken into police custody in connection with an operation against an illegal organisation, the Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front – Revolutionary Left (THKP/C-Devrimci Sol). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,500 (costs and expenses)   İnan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 19637/05, 43197/06 and 39164/07) The applicants, Barış İnan, Muhabbet Kurt and Azimet Ceyhan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973, 1978 and 1970 respectively and are currently detained on remand in prisons in Kocaeli (Turkey) on charges of attempting to undermine the constitutional order; the criminal proceedings against them are still pending. All three applicants complained about the excessive length of their detention pending trial, in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). Ms Kurt also alleged that there had been no effective domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of her detention orders, in breach of Article 5   §   4. Lastly, Ms Kurt and Ms Ceyhan also complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). (All three applicants) Violation of Article 5 § 3 (2nd applicant) Violation of Article 5 § 4 (2nd and 3rd applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR   9,000 to Mr   İnan, EUR   13,500 to Mrs   Kurt and EUR   10,000 to Mr   Ceyhan (non-pecuniary damage); and EUR   1,500 to Mr   İnan and EUR   24 to Mr   Ceyhan (costs and expenses)   Köktepe v. Turkey (no. 35785/03)* The applicant, Halil İbrahim Köktepe, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Çanakkale (Turkey). The case concerned the inclusion of land belonging to him within the public forest area. In a judgment of 22   July 2008 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the nature of the restriction imposed on the applicant’s property rights and the lack of compensation. The question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) not being ready for decision, it was reserved. Just satisfaction: EUR 100,000 (in respect of all heads of damages combined)   Övüş v. Turkey (no. 42981/04)* The applicant, Emel Övüş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Darmstadt (Germany). She has been separated from her husband since 1998. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complained about the length of the proceedings for the return of her children, further alleging that she had not been informed about the divorce proceedings and that the Turkish authorities had not taken any steps to ensure that she could see her children. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR   10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sağnak v. Turkey (no. 45465/04)* The applicant, Saygı Sağnak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   5 §§ 3, 4   and   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (c) (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that while in police custody he had had no legal assistance, and that the proceedings against him had been unfair and excessive in length. Under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) he further complained that there had been no remedy for the purposes of seeking compensation for his pre-trial detention and submitting his complaints. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,668 (costs and expenses)   Selin Aslı Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 39523/03)* The applicant, Selin Aslı Öztürk, is a Turkish national who was born 2000 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Articles   6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complained that she had been unable to apply for recognition of her deceased father’s divorce decree and was thus deprived of part of her inheritance. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Serkan Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 25499/04)* The applicants are seven Turkish nationals who were born in 1980, 1985, 1986, 1984, 1980, 1976 and 1980 and live in Istanbul. The case concerned their arrest during a demonstration, that the authorities considered illegal, to commemorate hunger strikes organised in about 20 prisons in 2000. They relied in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 11 Just satisfaction: (1st and 3rd applicants) EUR 7,000, each; (2nd, 4th and 5th applicants) EUR   2,000, each; (6th and 7th applicants) EUR 1,000, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Şıneğu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 4020/07, 4021/07, 9961/07 and 11113/07)* The applicants are four Turkish nationals, Zeki Şıneğu, Mahmut Kılıç, Abdurrahman Orhan and Sait Özbey, who were born in 1973, 1973, 1971 and 1974 respectively and are currently being held in Diyarbakir prison. They were arrested and taken into custody during operations against Hizbullah, an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (effective remedy), they complained that the length of their pre-trial detention and the proceedings against them had been excessive. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: (2nd applicant) EUR 5,500 and (1st, 3rd and 4th applicants) EUR   12,500, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Turgut and Others v. Turkey (no. 1411/03)* The applicants are seven Turkish nationals. In its judgment of 8   July 2008 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the annulment of the applicants’ title to a plot of land which was re-registered in the name of the Public Treasury, without compensation, on the ground that it had originally been part of the public forest area. The question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) not being ready for decision, the Court reserved it. Just satisfaction: EUR 1,350,000 (pecuniary damage)   Uzunget and Others v. Turkey (no. 21831/03)* The applicants are 14 Turkish nationals who live in Ankara. Following violent clashes in Bergama prison in July 2000, the applicants took part in a protest in a park in Ankara. The police broke up the protest and arrested the applicants who were subsequently convicted of taking part in an illegal demonstration. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained about the unjustified interference with their right to freedom of assembly and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 11 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Anea and Nitescu v. Romania (no. 45924/06)* This case concerned an action for the recovery of property. The applicants relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: failing restitution of the four apartments within three months, payment of EUR   900,000 (pecuniary damage); in any case, EUR   2,000, jointly (non-pecuniary damage).   Anişoara and Mihai Olteanu v. Romania (no. 37425/03)* This case concerned the quashing of a final decision in the applicants’ favour on an application by the Procurator-General. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500, jointly (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   400, jointly (costs and expenses)   Diver v. Romania (application no. 35510/06)* Schuster v. Romania (nos. 36977/03 and 37375/03)* These cases concerned the inability to recover possession of property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: failing the restitution of the apartments to the applicants within three months, payment of EUR 181,000 to Mr   Diver, EUR   95,000, jointly, to the applicants in the case of Schuster (pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,000, jointly, to the applicants in the case of Schuster (non-pecuniary damage); in any case EUR 1,000 to Mr   Diver (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,700 to Mr   Diver (costs and expenses)   Ghiţoi and Others v. Romania (nos. 2456/05, 5085/05 and 6149/05)* This case concerned the applicants’ complaint that the Romanian authorities had failed to enforce a final judgment in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: failing the enforcement of the judgment in favour of the applicants within three months, payment of EUR 10,000 for the 1 st and 4 th applicant each and EUR 10,000 jointly to the 2 nd and 3 rd applicants (pecuniary damage); in any case EUR 5,000 jointly to each of the 1 st and 4 th applicants and EUR 5,000 jointly to the 2 nd and 3 rd applicants (non-pecuniary damage); EUR   150 jointly to the 2 nd and 3 rd applicants (costs and expenses)   Stürner v. Romania (no. 17859/04)* This case concerned the applicants’ inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised, and the failure by the authorities to enforce a final decision confirming the award of damages. They relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 160,000, jointly (pecuniary damage)   Hüseyin Ateş and Mehmet Ateş v. Turkey (no. 28270/02)* In this case the applicants complained of the failure by the authorities to pay compensation for expropriation which had been awarded to them and the loss in value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000, jointly (pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000, jointly (non-pecuniary damage)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Ioan Moldovan v. Romania (no. 31334/03)* Keszeli v. Slovakia (no. 34602/03) Kiš v. Slovakia (no. 3673/05) Komanický v. Slovakia (No. 5) (no. 37046/03) Bakırcı and Others v. Turkey (no. 41902/04)   In these 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 Bakırcı and Others , the applicants also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13     ***   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) Nina Salomon (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) 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.