CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   821 03.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18   Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Nieminen v. Finland (application no. 16385/07) Petroff v. Finland (no. 31021/06) The applicants are two Finnish nationals: Ari Nieminen who was born in 1957 and lives in Lahti (Finland); and, Pentti-Nikolai Petroff who was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained of the excessive length of proceedings against them for, respectively, aggravated narcotics offences and an aggravated tax offence. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: (Mr Nieminen) 1,500 euros (EUR), (Mr Petroff) EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,000, each (costs and expenses)   Neu v. Hungary (no. 45392/05) The applicant, Gábor Neu, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Isaszeg (Hungary). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, he complained of the excessive length of proceedings against him on the charge of trafficking in stolen goods. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Kachan v. Poland (no. 11300/03)* The applicant, Witalij Kachan, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and is currently held in the Kherson prison (Ukraine). He was convicted for two robberies, essentially on the basis of witness statements made during the investigation period. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial), he complained of a breach of his defence rights during the criminal proceedings against him; in particular, he complained that the courts made it impossible for him to question the witnesses in question. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (concerning witnesses W.A. and A.M.) No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (concerning witness W.J.) Just satisfaction: EUR 500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Piotr Osuch v. Poland (no. 30028/06) The applicant, Piotr Osuch, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Chełm (Poland). Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained that the length of his detention on remand on suspicion of fraud as well as the bail requested from him was excessive Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sierpiński v. Poland (no. 38016/07) The applicant, Wojciech Sierpiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Warszawa (Poland). Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained about an administrative decision with regard to the expropriation of his plot of land, and that he was deprived of a fair trial on account of the Supreme Court’s refusal to examine his cassation complaint. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 No violation of Article 6 § 1 (concerning the lawfulness of the final judgment) Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Staszewska v. Poland (no. 10049/04) The applicant, Izabela Staszewska, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complained that she had been ill-treated by the police when arrested on her way back from a party and on refusing to divulge her personal details. No violations of Article 3   Jenisová v. Slovakia (no. 58764/00) Salus v. Slovakia (no. 28697/03) Šefčíková v. Slovakia (no. 6284/02) The applicants are three Slovakian nationals: Jarmila Jenisová and Štefan Salus who were born in 1925 and 1952 respectively and live in Bratislava; and, Mária Šefčíková who was born in 1926 and lives in Prešov (Slovakia). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complained of the compulsory letting of their land and scheduled or envisaged transfer to tenants. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: (Ms Jenisová) EUR 9,000, (Mr Salus) EUR 15,000 and (Mrs Šefčíková) EUR 8,188 (pecuniary damage); (Ms Jenisová) EUR 1,000, (Mr Salus) and (Mrs Šefčíková) EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage); (Ms Jenisová) EUR 300 and (Mrs Šefčíková) EUR 500 (costs and expenses)   Kabul and Others v. Turkey (no. 9362/04)* The applicants are eight Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1956, 1964, 1979, 1963, 1953, 1981 and 1954 respectively. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3 et   4 (right to liberty and security), they complained about the length of time they were held in police custody and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge this. Violation of Article 5 § 3 (All applicants except Mr Baysal and Mr Aşkın) Violation of Article 5 § 4 (All applicants) Just satisfaction: (Mr Kabul, Mr Kartal, Mr Algül, Mr İnan, Mr Atabay) EUR 3,500, each, (Mr   Ebuzeytoğlu) EUR 1,500, (Mr Baysal, Mr Aşkın) EUR 500, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Mehmet Ali Ayhan v. Turkey (no. 20406/05)* The applicant, Mehmet Ali Ayhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and is currently held in Edirne Prison (Turkey). He was arrested and placed in police custody and then pre-trial detention in 1993, and in 2004 he was convicted of murder and armed robbery. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, alleged that the criminal courts took account of confessions extracted by violence while he was in police custody, when he had no legal assistance. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,700 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Adam v. Romania (no. 45890/05)* This case concerned the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant because he had not paid stamp duty. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     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   Lappalainen v. Finland (no. 22175/06) Schwartz v. Hungary (no. 25073/05) Schwartz and Others v. Hungary (no. 5766/05) Wolfgéher and Turula v. Hungary (no. 36739/05) Chrapková v. Slovakia (no. 21806/05)     ***   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.