CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 décembre 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 }   907 01.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Armenia, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia 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   (*).   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.     Khachatryan v. Armenia (application no. 31761/04) The applicants, Mikhayel Khachatryan and Elyanora Khachatryan, are Armenian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1962 respectively and live in Yerevan (Armenia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained of the non-enforcement of a judgment against their former employer, a private company whose majority shareholder is the State, in which they were granted damages for salary arrears. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: 365 euros (EUR) to Mr Khachatryan and EUR 380 to Mrs Khachatryan for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000, jointly, for non-pecuniary damage   Hokic and Hrustic v. Italy (no. 3449/05)* The applicants, Ferid Hokic and Djulsa Hrustic, were born in 1952 and 1957 respectively. When the application was lodged they were living with their children in a travellers’ encampment in Rome. The couple are nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Roma origin. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, they complained of their detention with a view to their deportation, arguing that the deportation orders had been set aside. Violation of Article 5 §   1 (Mr Hokic) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage   Stolder v. Italy (no. 24418/03)* The applicant, Raffaele Stolder, is an Italian national who was born in 1958. Since his arrest in 1992 for, among other offences, criminal conspiracy, he has been held in several Italian prisons. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained that he was made subject to a special prison regime which entailed restrictions on, among other things, visits and communications. Violation of Article 8 (control of correspondence) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for non pecuniary damage. The Court awards EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses.   Drużkowski v. Poland (no. 24676/07) The applicant, Tomasz Drużkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence in Toruń Remand Centre (Poland) for homicide. He essentially complained that the length of his pre-trial detention of five years and four months has been excessive, in breach of Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security). Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses   Potoniec v. Poland (no. 40219/08) The applicant, Krzysztof Potoniec, is a Polish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Warsaw. He complained that the length – more than eight years for one level of jurisdiction – of criminal proceedings brought against him, after which he was finally acquitted, was unreasonable. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 850 for costs and expenses   Irinel Popa and Others v. Romania (nos. 6289/03, 6297/03 and 9115/03)* The applicants, Irinel Popa, Dorinel Popa, Eduard Colos, Ioana Simona Moroca and Georgeta Pricopoaea, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1961, 1963, 1966, 1968 and 1964 respectively and live in Bacău (Romania). They were company managers or bank employees at the material time, and were placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of financial offences. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), they alleged that their placement in detention was not in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, that they were not brought promptly before a judge and that no adequate reasons were given for extending their detention. Violation of Article 5 § 1 Two violations of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 5 § 4 (Last three applicants) Violation of Article 5 § 4 (extension of detention) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000, each, for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200, jointly, to the last three applicants for costs and expenses   Vinčić and Others v. Serbia (nos. 44698/06, 44700/06, 44722/06, 44725/06, 49388/06, 50034/06, 694/07, 757/07, 758/07, 3326/07, 3330/07, 5062/07, 8130/07, 9143/07, 9262/07, 9986/07, 11197/07, 11711/07, 13995/07, 14022/07, 20378/07, 20379/07, 20380/07, 20515/07, 23971/07, 50608/07, 50617/07, 4022/08, 4021/08, 29758/07 and 45249/07) The applicants are 31 Serbian nationals who were all members of the Independent Union of Aviation Engineers of Serbia. Following a strike organised by their Union, they complained that their claims for an employment-related benefit were rejected by the District Court in Belgrade, while other identical claims were simultaneously accepted. They maintained that this alleged inconsistency in the domestic court’s case-law violated their rights in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 300, each, for costs and expenses   Abay v. Turkey (no. 19332/04)* The applicant, Necati Abay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained that he did not have an effective remedy by which to complain of his placement in pre-trial detention on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses   Adalmış and Kıkıç v. Turkey (no. 25301/04)* The applicants, Sedat Adalmiş and Ercan Kiliç, were born in 1976 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were arrested and convicted of belonging to an armed gang. Relying on Article   6§§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), they complained that they did not have the assistance of a lawyer while they were in police custody, that they were convicted on the basis of depositions obtained in those circumstances and that they did not receive an impartial hearing. Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000, each, for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000, jointly, for costs and expenses   Ahmet Engin Şatır v. Turkey (no. 17879/04)* Yusuf Gezer v. Turkey (no. 21790/04) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Ahmet Engin Şatir was born in 1959 and lives in Istanbul. Yusuf Gezer was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Kırıkkale Prison. The applications concerned their placement in police custody in murder cases. They complained under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) that they were subjected to violence in custody and, in the case of Mr   Gezer, that the police officers responsible were granted impunity. Under Article   6 (right to a fair trial), they alleged that they were convicted on the basis of evidence obtained under duress. Mr   Gezer also relied on Article   5 (right to liberty and security). Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) (Mr Şatır) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) (Mr Gezer) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the most appropriate form of redress would be a re-trial of the applicants in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1.   Akbulut v. Turkey (no. 7076/05) The applicant, Şennur Şensoy Akbulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). The case concerned her conviction by penal order to pay a fine for non-compliance with a number of administrative orders. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 (right to a fair trial), she essentially complained that she was not able to defend herself, as no public hearing was held in her case.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The Court awards EUR   1,000 costs and expenses   Arıkan v. Turkey (no. 14071/04)* The applicant, Hacer Arıkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Balıkesir (Turkey). The judgment sentencing her to life imprisonment for an attack on the State’s constitutional order was quashed by the Court of Cassation in 2006 and the case remains pending before the Istanbul Assize Court. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), she complained that she did not have a legal advisor while in police custody and of the length of the proceedings against her. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 14,000 for non-pecuniary damage   Özcan Korkmaz and Others v. Turkey (nos. 44058/04, 19807/05 and 26384/05) The applicants are three Turkish nationals who were formerly members of the Turkish Armed Forces and have been dismissed for disciplinary reasons. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, which they brought following their dismissal, were unfair as they had no access to classified documents submitted to the court by the Ministry of Defence and as the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor was not communicated to them. (Mr İslam) Struck out (Mr Yazar) Violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (concerning both complaints) (Mr Korkmaz) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (non-communication of written opinion) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicants     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Dumitrescu Cristian and Mihail v. Romania (no. 29231/06)* This case concerned the inability to recover possession of property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. 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 1 of Protocol No. 1   Gărdean and S.C. Group 95 SA v. Romania (no. 25787/04)* This case concerned the annulment of a final judgment following an appeal by the chief public prosecutor. The applicants relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). 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. In the case of Trzaskalska , the applicant also relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Trzaskalska v. Poland (no. 34469/05) Castro Ferreira Leite v. Portugal (no. 19881/06)*     ***   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.