CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   045 19.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Finland, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 33   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.     Montani v. Italy (application no. 24950/06)* The applicant, Andrea Montani, is an Italian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Parma (Italy). He was sentenced to 30   years’ imprisonment for criminal conspiracy, murder, extortion, drug trafficking and other offences. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of being made subject to the special prison regime provided for by the Prison Administration Act – entailing restrictions on visits and monitoring of his correspondence – and of the lack of an effective remedy by which to obtain review of the decrees imposing the regime. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage   Andrzej Wierzbicki v. Poland (no. 48/03)* The applicant, Andrzej Wierzbicki, was a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lived in Wrocław (Poland) at the relevant time. He died in July 2006 and the application to the Court was pursued by his mother. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the treatment to which he was subjected as a result of his imprisonment, despite concerns about his state of health. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: 2,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Felix Blau sp. z o.o. v. Poland (no. 1783/04) The applicant, Felix Blau sp. z o.o., is a limited liability company based in Wrocław (Poland). The applicant company complained about the excessive court fees required from it in order to proceed with an appeal in proceedings it had brought against the National Sickness Fund seeking payment of debts. The applicant company relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court). No violation of Article 6 § 1   Wegera v. Poland (no. 141/07)* The applicant, Marian Wegera, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and is currently in Lublin Prison in Poland. He was remanded in custody in 2004 on suspicion of four counts of serious fraud. Relying, among other provisions, on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained, in particular, of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the restrictions imposed on contact with his family. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Palamariu v. Romania (no. 17145/04)* The applicants, Constantin Palamariu and his wife Dorina Palamariu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1940 respectively and live in Bacău (Romania). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complained of the length of the proceedings which followed the criminal complaint with a civil-party application which they had lodged against the persons occupying land belonging to them. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: jointly, EUR 2,400 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 63 (costs and expenses)   Abdurrahim Demir v. Turkey (no. 41213/02)* The applicant, Abdurrahim Demir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul. He was taken into police custody in 1995 following a police operation in a house belonging to the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and complained of the lack of an effective investigation into the matter. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (less EUR   850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe) (costs and expenses)   Aslantürk v. Turkey (no. 3884/04) The applicant, Ejder Aslantürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Ankara. A building contractor, Mr   Aslantürk complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for forgery. He relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,200 (non-pecuniary damage)   Çetkin v. Turkey (no. 30068/02)* The applicant, Bülent Çetkin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). In September 1999 he was arrested in connection with a murder investigation and was taken into police custody at Yenişehir gendarmerie headquarters in Bursa. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that he was ill-treated while in police custody. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Nisbet Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 23143/04)* The applicant, Nisbet Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Istanbul. In February 2003 she was arrested while on her way to an unauthorised demonstration on the square at Kadıköy landing stage in Istanbul to protest against the possible intervention of US forces in Iraq. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association), she complained that she was ill-treated by police officers and that no effective investigation was carried out in that regard, and that she was prevented from demonstrating peacefully. No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 11 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Ocak v. Turkey (no. 33675/04)* The applicant, Mehmet Ocak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Antalya (Turkey). His forebears owned land which in 1977 became part of State forestry land following a change to the land register which was not contested at the time. In 1998 he obtained a court decision granting him title to the land, which was then set aside by a higher court. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) he complained of the setting-aside of the decision in question and of the failure to pay him compensation. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Tuna v. Turkey (no. 22339/03)* The applicants, Ahmet Baran Tuna and Mustafa Tarık Tuna, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1934 and 1958 and live in Istanbul. Their son and brother Faruk Tuna died in 1980 when he was a student from injuries sustained while he was being held in police custody for putting a poster on display. Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life) and Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained of the lack of an effective investigation to identify the police officers responsible for Faruk Tuna’s death; prosecution of the offence is now time-barred. Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 40,000, jointly (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 D’Aniello v. Italy (no. 28220/05)*   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Zuccalà v. Italy (no. 72746/01)* In these cases the applicants complained of the inadequacy of expropriation compensation and the failure to pay compensation for the expropriation of their land. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Mrs   Zuccalà also relied on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Andreescu Murăreţ and Others v. Romania (no. 4867/04)* Caragheorghe and Others v. Romania (no. 38742/04)* Stanca Ciobanu v. Romania (no. 38800/02)* Varodi v. Romania (no. 8704/06)* These cases concerned the applicants’ 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). The applicants in the cases of Caragheorghe and Others and Varodi also relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Just satisfaction Chibulcutean v. Romania (no. 19588/04)* In a judgment of 21 April 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicants’ favour, 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 second applicant (widow of the first applicant who died in February 2009) EUR   5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,700 (costs and expenses).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Chiva v. Romania (no. 46011/06)* Hăbăgău v. Romania (no. 47166/06)*   (Three applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (All applicants) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ion Olteanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 3198/04, 12040/06, 15534/06 and 49645/07)* These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Corbu v. Romania (no. 12393/05)* Rogojină v. Romania (no. 6235/04)* These cases concerned the applicants’ inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Serban v. Romania (no. 3729/03)* This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bozüyük v. Turkey (no. 3595/05)* In this case the applicant complained of the delay by the authorities to pay compensation for expropriation which had been awarded to him and the loss in value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Nazmi Apaydın v. Turkey (no. 33742/05)* In this case the applicant complained that he was deprived of his property, designated as forest area, without compensation. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     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 Demirtürk the applicant also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Huoltoasema Matti Eurén Oy and Others v. Finland (no. 26654/08) Sobieccy v. Poland (no. 32594/03) Čižková v. Serbia (no. 8044/06) Dimitrijević and Jakovljević v. Serbia (no. 34922/07) Zongorová v. Slovakia (no. 28923/06)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 Rangdell v. Finland (no. 23172/08)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Demirtürk v. Turkey (no. 31345/05)     ***   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.