CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 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 } .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 }   834 10.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 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.     Landgren v. Finland (application no. 17889/07) The applicant, Timo Elias Landgren, is a Finnish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Malaga (Spain). The owner of a construction company, he complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in which he had been convicted of a building offence and damaging the environment in the city of Espoo (Finland). He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Schembri and Others v. Malta (no. 42583/06) The applicants are 11 Maltese nationals; all but one live in Ghaxaq (Malta). Owners of two plots of land in Ghaxaq, they complained that there had been no public purpose for the expropriation of their land and that the compensation they had been awarded was not fair or adequate. They relied in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Juez Alibuzu v. Spain (no. 25242/06)* The applicant, Juan Juez Albizu, is a Spanish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Biscay (Spain). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained of the lack of reasoning in a court decision in civil proceedings brought against a property development company for failure to honour its contractual obligations concerning the building of a villa. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction (non-pecuniary damage), EUR 4,000 (costs and expenses)   Arat v. Turkey (no. 10309/03) The applicant, Aladdin Arat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Arrested in February 2001 outside his grocery shop, he alleged that he had been beaten by the police both during his arrest and subsequent custody. He also complained that the authorities had not effectively investigated that allegation and that the proceedings brought against him for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation had been unfair because of the failure to communicate to him the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Bolukoç and Others v. Turkey (no. 35392/04) The applicants, Yunis Bolukoç, Ferhat Kıyak and Ayhan Ateş, are Turkish nationals born in 1962, 1978 and 1980 respectively. They were in Kandıra Prison (Turkey) at the time of the lodging of their application. Arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation in 1998 and 2000, all the applicants complained that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. Mr Bolukoç further complained about the excessive length and unfairness – on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the court which had tried him – of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicants relied in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000, jointly (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (nos. 1218/07, 1240/07, 1242/07, 1335/07, 1368/07, 1369/07, 3424/07, 3428/07, 3430/07, 3935/07, 3940/07, 7194/07, 7204/07, 7206/07 and 7211/07) This case concerned the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments awarding the applicants compensation for war damage. 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   Demetrescu v. Romania (no. 5046/02)* This case concerned the applicant’s inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to him that had been illegally nationalised. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Rodica Mihaela Rotaru v. Romania (no. 34325/05)* In this case the applicant complained that she had been unable to use, and collect rent from, an apartment which had been returned to her. She relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Cin and Others v. Turkey (no. 305/03)* In this case the applicants 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). 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Horsti v. Finland (no. 39509/08) Fekiač and Fekiačová v. Slovakia (no. 39202/04) Sika v. Slovakia (No. 6) (no. 868/05)     ***   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.