CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 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 } .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 }   19 12.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Finland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20   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.     Suuripää v. Finland (application no. 43151/02) The applicant, Keijo Tapani Suuripää, is a Finnish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Espoo (Finland). Formerly a senior crime inspector for the Ministry of the Interior Police Department, Mr Suuripää was arrested in July 1998 and charged with accepting bribes; he was convicted in June 2002 and sentenced to a fine. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged in particular that, in the criminal proceedings against him, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment to his disadvantage without holding an oral hearing. He further complained under the same article about the excessive length of the proceedings against him. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Just satisfaction: 6,250 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,500 (costs and expenses)   Mole v. Italy (no. 24421/03)* The applicant, Girolamo Mole, is an Italian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Parma (Italy). He is serving a life sentence for murder and other offences connected with the activities of a mafia-type criminal organisation. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that the exercise of his right of access to a court was restricted in that a complaint he lodged against a ministerial decree was not examined on the merits by the court responsible for the execution of sentences. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Bąkowska v. Poland (no. 33539/02) The applicant, Emilia Bąkowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Słupsk (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court), she complained that, in a civil claim she brought against a housing co-operative, she was only granted legal aid four days before the expiry of the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal, with the result that she had little time left to find a new lawyer. No violation of Article 6 § 1   Biśta v. Poland (no. 22807/07) The applicant, Jerzy Biśta, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Trzebinia (Poland). Mr   Biśta was arrested in August 2005 on suspicion of revealing State secrets and bribery. Released in December 2007, the criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Gęśla v. Poland (no. 15915/07) The applicant, Jacek Gęśla, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Chełm (Poland). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Gęśla complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of drug dealing and making threats. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,700 (non-pecuniary damage)   Aharon Schwarz v. Romania (no. 28304/02)* The applicant, Aharon Schwarz, is a German national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention between 2001 and 2004 (when he was pardoned on humanitarian grounds) while serving a prison sentence for fraud and forgery and uttering of various documents. His main complaints were that the conditions of his detention were inappropriate in view of the various diseases from which he was suffering, and that the treatment he was given for scabies was ineffective. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage)   Boloş v. Romania (no. 33078/03)* The applicant, Felician Boloş, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Negreşti Oaş (Romania). A former senior police officer, he was the subject of criminal proceedings instituted in 2003 by the National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained about his pre-trial detention in that context, submitting among other things that it was extended twice after hearings were held in his absence (as he was in prison) and that an appeal he lodged was not examined by the Supreme Court of Justice. Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,500 (non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses)   Karl Gottfried Schwarz and Helmut Martin Schwarz v. Romania (no. 39740/03)* The applicants, Karl Gottfried Schwarz, and his brother, Helmut Martin Schwarz, are German nationals who were born in 1954 and 1966 respectively and live in Augsburg (Germany). They are the former joint owners of half of a property in Valea Lungă, which was confiscated by the authorities in 1989 after the applicants had moved to Germany. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complained about the proceedings they instituted in 2001 for recovery of possession of the property in question and, in particular, the refusal by the national courts to examine one of their grounds of appeal. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: jointly, EUR 20,000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 5,200 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 320 (costs and expenses)   Babat and Others v. Turkey (no. 44936/04) The applicants are three Turkish nationals, Aziz and Azime Babat and their daughter, Marifet Akgün (Babat), who were born in 1954, 1954 and 1978 respectively. They live in Tunceli (Turkey) and Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), they alleged that their 25-year old son and brother, Önder Babat, was shot and killed in the street by State agents, probably the victim of an extra-judicial killing, and that the Turkish authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his death. No violation of Article 2 (extra-judicial killing) Violation of Article 2 (lack of effective investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000, jointly, to Aziz and Azime Babat, and EUR 5,000 to Marifet Akgün (non-pecuniary damage)   A.W. Khan v. United Kingdom (no. 47486/06) The applicant, Abdul Waheed Khan, is a Pakistani national who was born in 1975 and has been living in the United Kingdom since the age of three. He currently lives in Bradford (United Kingdom). He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in 2003 for importation of a significant quantity of heroin. Released in 2006 for good conduct, he was served with a deportation order due to the seriousness of his offence. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained about the decision to deport him as, a settled immigrant in the United Kingdom for almost his entire life, he has no family or other ties in Pakistan, his mother, brothers, British girlfriend and daughter all residing in the United Kingdom. Violation of Article 8 (in the event of the applicant’s deportation) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,750 (costs and expenses. No claim made by the applicant for damage.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Chelu v. Romania (no. 40274/04)* This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in his favour. He 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)   Dumitru Georgescu and Ion Georgescu v. Romania (nos. 30995/03 and 31003/03)* This case concerned an action for the recovery of property. The applicants relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction Ioan v. Romania (no. 31005/03)* In its judgment of 1   July 2008, the Court held that in this case there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning an action to recover 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 applicant EUR   79,500 (pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 (non-pecuniary damage).   Alexandra Maria Popescu v. Romania (no. 9684/04)* Seceleanu and Others v. Romania (no. 2915/02) Emilian Ştefănescu v. Romania (no. 35018/03)* These cases 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). (Alexandra Maria Popescu v. Romania and Seceleanu and Others v. Romania) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Emilian Ştefănescu v. Romania) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) and violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Hakan Güçlü v. Turkey (no. 44307/04)* In this case the applicant complained that there had been no public hearing in proceedings brought against him. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Serpil Kaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 21313/05)* In this case the applicants complained that they were deprived of their property, designated as forest area, without compensation. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).I 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 Paliga v. Poland (no. 7975/07) Doğru Avşar v. Turkey (no. 14310/05)*     ***   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.