CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   882 24.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 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.     Halilovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 23968/05) The applicant, Mirsad Halilovic, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1968 and lives in Zenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The case concerned Mr Halilovic’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention in the psychiatric annex of Zenica prison following an attempted murder for which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity (paranoid schizophrenia). He relied in particular on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: 22,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Ipteh SA and Others v. Moldova (no. 35367/08) The applicants are Ipteh SA, a company incorporated in Moldova; Worldway Limited, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom; Kapital Invest SA, a company incorporated in Romania; and, Ion Rusu, a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Iaşi (Romania). The latter three applicants all hold shares in Ipteh SA. The case concerned the alleged unfairness of proceedings in which the privatisation of Ipteh SA was annulled. The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Hermanowicz v. Poland (no. 44581/08) The applicant, Ziemowit Hermanowicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Krupski Młyn (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Hermanowicz complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Żurawski v. Poland (no. 8456/08) The applicant, Andrzej Żurawski, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Sosnowiec (Poland). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Żurawski complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand on suspicion of establishing and leading an organised criminal group involved in money laundering, illegal trading in liquid fuel and the falsification of tax documents. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Bolovan v. Romania (no. 64541/01) The applicant, Constantin Bolovan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Cioriaşi (Romania). Stopped by the police in June 1997 on suspicion of drunk driving, Mr   Bolovan alleged that he had been hit by a police officer and that the ensuing investigation into his allegation had been inadequate. He relied in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Çeven v. Turkey (no. 41746/04)* The applicant, Güldede Çeven, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. He was taken into custody in connection with an operation against an illegal armed organisation, charged with “attempting to overthrow the Turkish constitutional order” and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the duration of his pre-trial detention and his inability to obtain compensation for the alleged damage. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 19,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Şentürk v. Turkey (no. 27577/04) The applicant, Hasan Şentürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Karacabey (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Şentürk complained that there had been no oral hearing during proceedings in which he sought compensation for being unlawfully arrested and detained on charges of armed robbery and murder. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction   Yıldırır v. Turkey (no. 21482/03) The applicant, Zekeriye Yıldırır, is a Turkish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Mr Yıldırır complained that his house in Boğazkurt, Ankara, had been demolished by the local authorities on the grounds that it was an illegal construction and posed a threat to public health and the environment. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: reserved for decision at a later date   Omojudi v. the United Kingdom (no. 1820/08) The applicant, Steven O. Omojudi, is a Nigerian national who was born in 1960 and is currently living in Nigeria. A former settled immigrant in the United Kingdom, Mr Omojudi complained that, following his conviction for a sexual offence, he had been deported to Nigeria. He relied in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 6,000 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Petroiu v. Romania (no. 33055/09) Petroiu and Others v. Romania (no. 30105/05) These cases concerned actions for recovery of property. The applicants relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Mrs Petroiu and seven other applicants)   Popović v. Serbia (no. 33888/05) This case concerned the non-enforcement of a final decision by the Serbian authorities in the applicant’s favour. She relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Anthousa Iordanou v. Turkey (no. 46755/99) This case concerned the applicant’s allegation that the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus deprived her of access to her property. She relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction Devecioğlu v. Turkey In a judgment of 13 November 2008 the Court held that the authorities had deprived the applicants of their property without paying compensation in violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In its judgment today, the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   100,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR   5,000 (costs and expenses).   Kök and Others v. Turkey (no. 20868/04)* In this case the applicants complained that they had been deprived of their property, designated as forest area, without 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   Horváth and Others v. Hungary (no. 45407/05) Polkowska v. Poland (no. 20127/08) Simić v. Serbia (no. 29908/05) Majeríková v. Slovakia (no. 21057/06) Kaygısız v. Turkey (no. 33106/04)* Nane and Others v. Turkey (no. 41192/04)*       ***   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.