CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 janvier 2010

.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 }   2 05.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, 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   (*).   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Bongiorno and Others v. Italy (application no. 4514/07)* The applicants, Francesca, Rosa and Margherita Bongiorno and Daniele Saponaro, are Italian nationals who born in 1971, 1974, 1976 and 1972 respectively and live in Fasano (Italy). In 2003 S.B., the father of the first three applicants and the father-in-law of Daniele Saponaro, was placed under police supervision on suspicion of belonging to a Mafia-type organisation; some of his possessions, including four items of immovable property and four cars, were also confiscated. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the fact that the proceedings concerning the application of these preventive measures were not conducted in public, and of the unfairness of the proceedings which resulted in their possessions being confiscated although they had not been convicted of any offence. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, 3,000   euros (EUR) (costs and expenses)   Impar Ltd. v. Lithuania (no. 13102/04) The applicant, Impar Ltd., is a company registered in Lithuania. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant company complained about the excessive length of tax litigation proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 900 (non-pecuniary damage)   Šulcas v. Lithuania (no. 35624/04) The applicant, Donatas Šulcas, is a Lithuanian national who lives in Lithuania. Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr   Šulcas complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud, forgery and unlawfully obtaining property. He also complained about the seizure of his and his company’s property during those criminal proceedings, in breach of Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,700 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Bucuria v. Moldova (no. 10758/05) The applicant, Bucuria Inc., is a company registered in Moldova. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court), the applicant company complained about not being summoned to a hearing in proceedings brought against it by a former employee for unfair dismissal. It further complained about the ensuing damages it was ordered to pay to the employee, in breach of Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Pădureţ v. Moldova (no. 33134/03) The applicant, Aurel Pădureţ, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1979 and lives in Bozieni (Moldova). Mr   Pădureţ alleged that he was tortured when taken to Centru Police station in March 2000 for questioning in connection with a robbery; in particular he was kicked, punched, suspended on a metal bar with his feet and hands tied together behind his back (“Palestinian hanging”) and had a glass bottle repeatedly inserted into his anus. The criminal investigation against him was subsequently discontinued. He also alleged that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his ill-treatment, thus allowing the perpetrators to escape responsibility. He relied in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Violations of Article 3 (torture and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,650 (costs and expenses)   Railean v. Moldova (no. 23401/04) The applicant, Mihail Railean, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Krutoyarovka (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), Mr   Railean alleged that the Moldovan authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his son’s death, killed in a hit and run accident in January 2001. Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Kulik v. Poland (no. 40909/08) The applicant, Krzysztof Kulik, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Nowogród Bobrzański (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Kulik complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in February 2001 for robbery, and which are still pending. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Wrona v. Poland (no. 23119/05)* The applicant, Elżbieta Wrona, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Świlcza (Poland). In 1998 lustration proceedings were started against her. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial), she complained that she was merely allowed to consult the confidential file in her case, without being able to take notes, unlike the other party to the proceedings. She also took issue with the lustration measure itself, pointing in particular to the severity of the penalty, consisting in a ten-year ban on occupying certain positions. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 34761/03) The applicant, Ivan Lexa, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava. Former director of the Slovakian intelligence service, Mr   Lexa was arrested in December 2002 on charges of incitement to commit murder, abuse of authority and mishandling of classified State secrets. Released in June 2003, the proceedings against him were discontinued in September 2006 for lack of proof. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the unlawfulness of his detention and the proceedings concerning its review. Violation of Article 5 § 4 No violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)   Abdulkerim Kaya v. Turkey (no. 28069/07)* Mehmet Garip Özer and Others v. Turkey (nos. 9603/07, 9894/07 and 16474/07)* Sevim and Others v. Turkey (nos. 7540/07, 7859/07 and 11979/07)* The applicants, Abdulkerim Kaya, Mehmet Garip Özer, Yusuf Begiç, Sabri Aktaş, Selami Sevim, İsmet Ökmen and Mithat Yılmaz, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1974 and 1964 respectively and live in Turkey. Mr   Aktaş lives in Diyarbakır, while the other applicants are currently in Diyarbakır Prison. The applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on different dates between 1998 and 2001 during operations against Hizbullah, an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Articles   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the length of their pre-trial detention. The last three applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of that detention. Under Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), the last three applicants also alleged that their case was not heard promptly and that they did not have an effective remedy in that regard. (1st and 2nd case)Violation of Article 5 § 3 (3rd case) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (2nd and 3rd case) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (3rd case) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 to Mr Kaya, EUR   7,500 to Mr Özer, EUR   8,000 to Mr   Begiç, EUR   4,500 to Mr   Sevim, EUR 6,600 to Mr   Ökmen and EUR   8,000 to Mr   Yılmaz (non-pecuniary damage)   Musa Karataş v. Turkey (no. 63315/00) The applicant, Musa Karataş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and is currently serving a life sentence in Locaeli Prison (Turkey). Mr   Karatas was placed in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Türkiye Komünist Emek Partisi/Leninist (the Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist, (“the TKEP-L”)). Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) he alleged that he was convicted on the basis of the statements extracted from him during ill-treatment in police custody and in the absence of his lawyer. Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses) (less EUR 715 received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid)   Ümit Aydın v. Turkey (no. 33735/02)* The applicant, Ümif Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was convicted of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he alleged that the court which tried him was not impartial, as a military judge participated in his trial. He also complained that the principle of presumption of innocence was breached, that he was not given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Chief Prosecutor, that no lawyer was present during the preliminary investigation and that the proceedings were excessively long. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 150 (costs and expenses)     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 Cudowscy v. Poland (no. 34591/04)* Śliwiński v. Poland (no. 40063/06)* Mustafa Gürbüs v. Turkey (no. 6016/04)* Yardımcı v. Turkey (no. 25266/05)*     ***   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.