CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   805 27.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 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.     Miernicki v. Poland (application no. 10847/02) The applicant, Jan Miernicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and is currently serving an eight year sentence in Wołów Prison (Poland) for drug trafficking and being the leader of an organised criminal gang. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Miernicki complained about the unlawfulness of the decision reviewing his detention and the excessive length of his detention on remand. The case also concerned the Polish authorities’ censorship of the applicant’s correspondence, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention. Violation of Article 5 § 1 No violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: 1,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Er v. Turkey (no. 21377/04) The applicant, Ahmet Kenan Er, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him on charges, among other things, of professional misconduct, bribery and assault and battery while serving in the Turkish armed forces. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 9,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Erdem Onur Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 49655/07)* The applicant, Erdem Onur Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Iskenderun (Turkey). He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that his state of health was incompatible with prison. No violation of Article 3 (treatment)   M. Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 39994/04)* The applicant, Murat Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Ankara. Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained of the failure to pay him compensation awarded to him in final decisions after the authorities rescinded the sale of a plot of land. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: enforcement of judgment within three months   Olymbiou v. Turkey (no. 16091/90) The applicant, Andri Olymbiou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1950 and lives in Nicosia. The case concerned Ms   Olymbiou’s complaint that the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus had deprived her of her home and properties since 1974. She also complained that she was unlawfully arrested and beaten during her participation in an anti-Turkish demonstration in Nicosia in July 1989 and that the ensuing proceedings against her had been unfair. She relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security),   6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 11 (right to freedom of assembly) and   13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), she also alleged that she was deprived of her property and arrested, beaten and prosecuted following the 1989 demonstration solely because she was a Greek-Cypriot. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 8 No violation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Yusuf Büyükdağ v. Turkey (no. 22920/04)* The applicant, Yusuf Büyükdağ, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him on charges of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation and attempting to overturn the constitutional order. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Crompton v. United Kingdom (no. 42509/05) The applicant, Thomas John Crompton, is a British national who was born in 1954 and lives in Stalybridge (United Kingdom). Mr   Crompton complained about the excessive length – 11   years – of proceedings he brought concerning his redundancy from the army and the lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal which determined those proceedings. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bohnenschuh v. Romania (no. 14427/05)* Vidrascu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 11138/06)* These cases concerned the applicants’ inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised. They relied in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Vidrascu the applicant also complained of the excessive length of the proceedings, in breach of Article   6   §   1. (Both cases) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Mrs Vidrascu) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Dermendyin v. Romania (no. 17754/06)* This case concerned an action for the recovery of property. The applicant relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   S.C. Prodcomexim S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 35877/05) In this case the applicant company complained of the failure by the authorities to fully enforce a final judgment in its favour. It 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   Efendioğlu v. Turkey (no. 3869/04) Eryılmaz v. Turkey (no. 32322/02)* Kahyaoğlu v. Turkey (nos. 53007/99 and 71347/01)* These three cases concerned deprivation of the applicants’ land without payment of compensation. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Efendioğlu the applicant also relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Yavuz Selim Karayiğit v. Turkey (no. 45874/05) In this case the applicant complained that he was not given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court by the principal public prosecutor. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Yıldız and Sevinç v. Turkey (no. 26892/02)* This case concerned the applicants’ complaints concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court in criminal proceedings against them and the length of those proceedings. They also complained that they had not been given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Chief Prosecutor. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Mária Menyhárt v. Hungary (no. 33552/05) Oravecz v. Hungary (no. 15481/05) Matei and Tutunaru v. Moldova (no. 19246/03) Ferreira Araújo do Vale v. Portugal (no. 6655/07)* Marinică Tiţian Popovici v. Romania (no. 34071/06) Janík v. Slovakia (no. 5952/05) Elif Karakaya v. Turkey (no. 5173/05)     ***   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.