CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; 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 } .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 }   782 20.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Georgia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 34 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.     Gorgiladze v. Georgia (application no. 4313/04)* The applicant, David Gorguiladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1981. He is currently in Tbilisi (Georgia) serving an eighteen-year sentence following his conviction in 2003 for murder. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of poor conditions of detention (in particular of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he also alleged that the judicial formation which tried his case at first instance was not a “tribunal established by law”. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violaton of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Valeriu and Nicolae Roşca v. Moldova (no. 41704/02) The applicants, Valeriu Roşca and Nicolae Roşca, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1960 and 1978 respectively and live in Cotiujenii-Mari (Moldova). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) they complained in particular that they had been ill-treated while in police detention in order to compel them to make self-incriminating statements and that their complaints to that effect had not been examined promptly; they also complained that they had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. Violations of Article 3 (on all these points) Just satisfaction: EUR   15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Andrulewicz v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 40807/07)   The applicant, Andrzej Andrelewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Suwałki (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) he complained of the length of criminal proceedings against him on a charge of car theft. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 98 (costs and expenses)   Nowiński v. Poland (no. 25924/06) The applicant, Jan Nowiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Trzebnica (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) he alleged that his right of access to a court had been violated as a result of the court’s refusal to accept his statement of claim for damages against the State Treasury. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Trufin v. Romania (no. 3990/04)* The applicant, Tatiana Ligia Trufin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Botoşani (Romania). Relying on Article 2 (right to life), she complained of the lack of an effective investigation into the violent death of her brother. Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Čanády v. Slovakia (No. 2) (no. 18268/03) The applicant, Vladimír Čanády, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Turany (Slovakia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) he alleged, in particular, that his right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal had been violated in proceedings leading to the imposition of a fine on him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 50 (costs and expenses)   Attı and Tedik v. Turkey (no. 32705/02) The applicants, Hikmettin Attı and Nevzat Tedik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1975 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Accused of membership of an illegal organisation, they were sentenced to twelve and a half year’s imprisonment in 2001. Relying on Article   5   §§   2, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) (right to a fair trial) they alleged, in particular, that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest, that they not been brought before a judge within a reasonable time, that their families had not been informed about their arrests and that they had not had the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in police custody. They also alleged that the criminal proceedings against them had not been conducted fairly. Violation of Article 5 §§ 2, 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000, jointly (costs and expenses)   Ballıktaş v. Turkey (no. 7070/03) The applicant, Burcu Ballıktaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Ankara. She was sentenced to twelve and a half years in prison for membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) she alleged in particular that she had been ill-treated in police custody, that there had not been an effective investigation in this respect and that the criminal proceedings against her had not been conducted fairly. No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,000 (costs and expenses)   Çolakoğlu v. Turkey (no. 29503/03) The applicant, Sefa Çolakoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara. He was arrested on suspicion of obtaining property by deception and sentenced to four years and eight months in prison in 2000 for forgery and perverting the course of justice. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) he complained in particular about the unfairness and length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length of the proceedings) Just satisfaction: 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.   Kop v. Turkey (no. 12728/05)* The applicant, Hasan Kop, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about being ill-treated during the dispersal of a demonstration against the NATO summit in Istanbul in 2004 and that there was no effective investigation in this respect. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR   8,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and 1,500 (costs and expenses)   Volkan Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 29105/03) The applicant, Volkan Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1986 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He was arrested in 2002 on suspicion of robbery. Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complained about being ill-treated in police custody and about the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Yeşilyurt and Tutar v. Turkey (no. 8296/05) The applicants, Tayyar Yeşilyurt and Ramazan Tutar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1984 and 1985 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). In 2004, a criminal order was issued against them and they were found guilty of assault with a knife, resulting in actual bodily harm. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) they complained that they had not been able to defend themselves in the proceedings brought against them. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, EUR   330 to the first applicant (pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000, each (costs and expenses)   Yunus Aktaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 24744/03)* The applicants, Yunus Aktaş, Kerem Karakaya and Ergin Tek, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1985, 1983 and 1982 respectively. They were arrested in 2003 in connection with a violent robbery committed by a group of individuals. Two of the applicants were sentenced in 2004 to over sixteen years’ imprisonment; the trial of the third applicant is pending. Relying on Article   5   §§ 1 and/or 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Aktaş complained about the length of his detention on remand and all the applicants alleged that they had not had any remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of their police custody. Under Article 6   §§   1 and 3   (c), they further complained that they had not received a fair hearing as they had not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody. (Mr Aktaş) Violation of Article 5 § 1 (All applicants) Violation of Article 5 § 4 (Mr Karakaya and Mr Tek) Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1 Just satisfaction: (Mr Aktaş) EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage); (Mr Karakaya and Mr Tek) EUR   1,000, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Yürük v. Turkey (no. 23707/02)* The applicant, Ekrem Yürük, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul. Mr Yürük was taken into police custody in 1994 as part of an operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation), and was sentenced in 2001 to over twelve years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained in particular of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,600 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Mihai and Radu Rădulescu v. Romania (no. 14884/03)* This case concerned an action for the recovery of property, and the failure by the Romanian authorities to enforce a final judgment concerning the restitution of part of this property to the applicants. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (recovery of property)   Bozak v. Turkey (no. 32697/02)* Özerman and Others v. Turkey (no. 3197/05)* The applicants in these cases complained that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the case of Özerman and Others also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), and In the case of Bozak the applicant also complained of the length of the proceedings under Article   6   §   1. (Both cases) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (1st case) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Fuat Çalışkan v. Turkey (no. 25506/03) Hünkar Demirel v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 12166/03)* These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that they had not been given a copy of the opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Chief Prosecutor. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Özer and Others v. Turkey (no. 783/03)* The applicants in this case complained of the amount of compensation for expropriation awarded to them by the authorities and the loss in value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Vaide Yıldıs and Others v. Turkey (no. 13721/04)* In this case the applicants complained of the delay 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) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     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.   Some of the applicants also relied on Articles   8 (right to private and family life) and/or 13 (right to an effective remedy) and/or Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Karaván City Bt. v. Hungary (no. 26859/05) Székely v. Hungary (no. 38904/05) Radoszewska-Zakoś v. Poland (no. 858/08) Wypukoł-Piętka v. Poland (no. 3441/02) Sequeira v. Portugal (no. 18545/06)* Otopeanu v. Romania (no. 29700/04)* Dikici v. Turkey (no. 18308/02) Altındağ and İpek v. Turkey (no. 42921/02)* Celal Çağlar v. Turkey (no. 11181/04) Kalgı v. Turkey (no. 37252/05) Serçinoğlu v. Turkey (no. 7755/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Ergül and Others v. Turkey (no. 22492/02)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Selahattin Çetinkaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 31504/02)*     ***   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.